Tragedy Enlightenment-libre

8/10/2019 Tragedy Enlightenment-libre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tragedy-enlightenment-libre 1/118

Tragedy and Enlightenment

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction

• Taking Leave of Antiquity?

• Postmodern Shifts

• Tragedy and Enlightenment

• ea!!ro!riating the Past

• "otes

2. So!hocles# $edi!us Tyrannos

• "otes

3. Li%erating &iscourse

• "otes

4. Plato#s e!u%lic

• "otes

5. &emocracy and &isci!line in Aeschylus#s $resteia

• "otes

6. 'onclusion

• "otes

Works Cited

1. Introduction

The Persistence of the Past

I do not know what meaning classical studies could have for our time if they were not untimely—that is

to say, acting counter to our time and thereby acting on our time and, let us hope, for the benefit of atime to come.

We are much less Greeks than we believe. We are neither in the amphitheater nor on the stage, but inthe panoptic machine.

• • •

Taking Leave of Antiquity?

We are much more Greeks than we care to admit.I say this in full knowledge that current academic fashion tends to ignore, debunk, or otherwise

dismiss classical Athens. Social scientists re ect the idea!l" of Athenian democracy as morefantasy than fact, while deeming the moral claims made by #lato and Aristotle on behalf of thepolis and its politics radically incommensurable with the realities of the large, structurallydifferentiated, functionally interdependent, modern nation$state. Social historians carefully

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997;brand=ucpress


http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=d0e78&toc.depth=100&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=ch1&toc.depth=100&toc.id=ch1&brand=ucpress

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=s1.0.1&toc.depth=100&toc.id=ch1&brand=ucpress




http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=d0e675&toc.depth=100&toc.id=ch1&brand=ucpress











http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=d0e9023&toc.id=&brand=ucpress






http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=d0e78&toc.depth=100&toc.id=&brand=ucpress





















reconstruct the practices of everyday life in order to debunk the %glory that was Greece& byreminding us, rightly of the cruel and ob ectionable practices and institutions upon which theancient ideal of civic freedom rested' slavery, the sub ugation of women, and acute (enophobia.)eminist critics reveal the deep structures of Greek literature and philosophy as irredeemablymisogynist, while one recent investigation of classical Athens has endeavored to unmask thepopular view of the Greeks as a construction of nineteenth$century racist historiography. [ 1 ]

*ut fashion changes. While +iet sche-s observation that the value of classical studies lies in their

untimeliness remains as appropriate as ever, recent developments make possible a newappropriation of the literary and philosophical works of classical Athens. A sea change similar tothe one that recently reconfigured the global political map has begun to transform the study ofclassical Greece. While a conventional division of labor still holds sway at the core of the field,some rebellious scholars have breached disciplinary walls. In an intellectual disturbanceremarkable for its innovation and daring, classicists have increasingly come to adopt historical,philosophical, and poststructuralist literary methods in their analyses of ancient te(ts.

onversely, scholars from such diverse fields as philosophy, comparative literature, historicalsociology, and political science now move on terrain that was once the e(clusive property ofclassical philologists. [ 2 ] /hese deliberate trespasses against the conventions of scholarly rectitudeyield surprising results' epic and tragic poetry suddenly contribute to our understanding ofconcepts such as agency, responsibility, autonomy, and freedom, which are usually associatedwith the philosophical tradition0 instead of being consigned to the %primitive& stage of archaicthought, Greek tragedy is now recogni ed as playing a constitutive role in the emergence ofclassical political theory and as informing the %tradition& of Western political thought. 1eanwhile,the central moral and ethical claims of classical philosophy have been cast in a new light, and arenow being studied with reference to Greek literature-s preoccupation with moral deliberation andchoice. [ 3 ]

As traditional academic disciplines continue to redraw their boundaries, Greek poetry andphilosophy find themselves at the center of some of the most important philosophical, political,and ethical debates of the present day !consider, for instance, the controversy over amulticultural curriculum and the relevance of %canonical& te(ts to education". /his newfoundimmediacy re2uires as a condition for successful interpretation that scholars bring the past closeenough to make the Greeks intelligible and yet keep them sufficiently distant to preserve theirotherness. As a result, the barriers between the ancient and modern world have become morepermeable, the archaic past has become a more fre2uent interlocutor of the modern !orpostmodern" present, and the present less sure about %progress& and its own position of moral,political, and cultural hegemony over the past. Given such historical and cultural decentering,

%later& no longer inevitably means better. /hese deliberate trangressions of both culturally andtemporally constituted boundaries facilitate an appropriation of the classical past in ways thatre2uire it to speak to the most pressing problems of the present moment and avoid nostalgia fora world that perhaps never was. Such are the tasks of historical and cultural translation that takeus from the modern !or postmodern" to the ancient world and back again. And although thislabor is both difficult and necessarily always incomplete, it tells us that, by better understandingthe Greeks, we can perhaps begin better to understand ourselves. I intend this book as a modestcontribution to the search for political and theoretical self$understanding that motivates this mostrecent %classical turn.&

In the absence of a more finely detailed and richly te(tured survey of a rapidly changing field, myaccount of the recent !anti"disciplinary disturbances in classical scholarship necessarily remainsincomplete. 3et the transformations sketched briefly here undoubtedly suggest alternative pathsto the past' the drawing of fresh maps proclaims old territory now open for renewed e(ploration./hese disturbances thus make possible an imaginative and critical reappropriation of ancientAthenian thought. A growing number of contemporary social and literary theorists, none of whomharbor sympathetic attitudes toward the classical past, have in fact already begun this work./horoughly modern !or postmodern" in their concerns and methods, these theorists nonethelessremain engaged, in some way or on some level, with the Greeks' 1ichel )oucault with theSophists, 4ac2ues 5errida with #lato-s Phaedrus, 4ean$)ran6ois 7yotard withAristotle-s Rhetoric, and 48rgen 9abermas with the classical conceptions of dialogue anddeliberation. [ ] 1oreover, contemporary democratic theorists, interested in what they variouslycall the %public sphere,& the %public realm,& or simply the %political,& find themselves turning moreand more to the central categories of Athenian political thought. Although the most currentdisputes over the constitution of political space, the public sphere, and the politics of identity anddifference have been inspired by 9abermas and )oucault, these discussions inevitably return !via

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=d0e675&toc.id=ch1&toc.depth=100&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=bn0.1#X










+iet sche and 9annah Arendt" to the deliberative and performative aspects of classical Greekpolitics. )eminists, who once e(coriated those unredeemed !and presumably unredeemable"heroic aspects of the masculine polis, have now begun to theori e an %agonistic feminism.&#ostmoderns still committed to democratic institutions and practices—yet who otherwise suspectas bad nostalgia a politics of place monumentali ed in the memory of the %democratic& Greekpolis—are tentatively formulating a concept of %agonistic democracy.& :ven those moderns whodefend rational discursive content against performative practice acknowledge the force and

appeal of Athenian$inspired virtuosity and theatricality in politics. [ ! ] Whether we want to fashiona postmodern agonistic sub ectivity that disrupts the regulative ideal of rational consensus or toredeem the enlightenment promise of a society comprised of deliberating citi ens, ancient Athenshas ironically become a site of contest for thinking about the most current problems in theoryand politics, especially for those most likely to resist its claims and re ect its authority./hese struggles—fought on and over the theoretical and political topography of the ancient city$state—represent neither a petty war over academic turf of dubious value nor merely a passingfancy for things anti2ue. /hey indicate, rather, the continued presence of a deep and abidingconflict. /he present dispute over who shall control the meaning of the classical polis provokessome of the most important issues challenging us today. )or encoded in the contest over howthat past is to be interpreted, represented, and subse2uently appropriated—as stable origin for aculturally hegemonic reason or as shifting site for a disturbing sophistic !ant"agonism—is astruggle over the legacy of the :nlightenment, and so over the very character and identity ofmodernity. ;bviously, these disputes over the classical polis are as much, if not more, about whowe are now, how we ought to live, and what forms our intellectual, social, and politicalinstitutions shall take as they are about the Greeks. +ot so obvious is how these disputes are tobe settled when the once seemingly immobile and solid soil of modernity has revealed its rifts,instabilities, and fissures—when that ground begins to shift under our feet. It is to this shiftingterrain that contemporary theory responds, for what ultimately provokes this ironic turn toAthens—as paradigmatic precursor of rational deliberation or as instructive e(emplar in agonisticvirtuosity—are the profound social and political transformations wrought by modernity.

• • •

Post"odern #hifts

At the close of the twentieth century and on the edge of postmodernity, we are witnessingtransformations as rapid as they are radical. /he emergence of new and pervasive configurationsof power, the contraction, systematic distortion, and ine(orable displacement of public speechand space, the rise of politics as spectacle with the advent of mass$mediated publics, theincreasing permeability of national %sovereignty& to the global movement and metabolism ofcapital, people, goods, information, images, and viruses, both biological and digital, together withthe appearance of increasingly heterogeneous identities, practices, and forms of life—these arebut a few of the most widely visible structural transformations currently reconfiguring the terrainof contemporary politics. [ $ ] Such transformations have posed a fundamental challenge to theconceptual categories and political vocabularies of the modern enlightenment. As a result, theterms of debate have begun to shift away from %politics as usual& as new concerns are raised andnew demands are issued that remained inarticulate within the confines of an older practice and

discourse. <ecent years have witnessed the emergence of a %new politics of protest& in the liberaldemocracies of the West that is both sign and symptom of modernity-s unstable foundations.=nchartable by means of the traditional coordinates of class, group, or self$interest, largelyindifferent to the material goods distributed by the welfare state, suspicious of !or opposed to"electoral success and the official systems of party and parliament, the new politics challenges thevery foundations of enlightened modernity and continues to provoke a fundamental rethinking ofits grounds, goals, and practices.Although the issues, scenes, and groupings transform themselves daily, these diverse challengesto enlightenment hegemony are obvious to even the most casual ethnographer of contemporary+orth American politics. In past decades, the peace, antinuclear, and environmental movementshave actively resisted both the material affluence of consumer culture and the destructivepotential of an administrative state and a global system of transnational capitalism locked into

the logic of technical control, mastery, and domination. 1ore recently, a politics of identity anddifference has begun to assert itself against a hegemonic :uropean cultural tradition advertisedas universal history. )or today-s cheeky consumers of culture, the West has lost its universalappeal precisely at a time when it can no longer appeal to universals. In a society increasingly







fragmented by centrifugal displacements of once$centered authority and community, fiercestruggles over local identities, although they hardly approach the violent intensity of theresurgent nationalisms that have recently swept the *alkans, pose a new and unruly challenge tothe current politics of cultural hegemony. /hese radical dispersals continue to engender a rapidproliferation of new social codes, which are ust as rapidly transformed into a micropolitics ofdifference based on supressed, submerged, or otherwise ignored narratives of ethnicity, gender,race, religion, se(uality, class, and other cultural !and subcultural" affiliations. Such affiliations

range from the now highly differentiated women-s movement to 2ueer politics, from the hardcoreurban scene, with its punks, gangsters, crack, and guns, to the more innocuous suburbanlandscape of shopping malls, 1/>, designer drugs, television talk shows, late night movies, andalternative music scene. [ %]

Whatever the social code or subcultural milieu, the new politics of difference presently assertsitself against the falsely universali ed pro ection of a unitary :uropean history, culture, andidentity. In myriad locations and in strikingly inventive ways, resistant and rebellious selvescontinue to struggle against current enlightenment assumptions that define the %sub ects& ofpolitics. /hrough agonal acts of resistance to contemporary cultural hegemony, new sub ects,selves, identities, and practices are presently being fashioned and refashioned. /hese mostrecent challenges to enlightenment hegemony endeavor to open up political spaces for contestingpresent forms of cultural e(clusion, domination, and hierarchy.

In the academy, the current struggles against politics as usual have inspired !and been e(plainedby" that loose alliance of feminists, multiculturalists, and poststructuralists suspicious of theuniversal categories that are the :nlightenment-s legacy. What this diverse group of criticsthreatens to uncover and unsettle are the founding fictions of the :nlightenment itself, itspretensions to, and promises of, truth, reason, and individual liberty, packaged as universal moralprogress. Whether the issue is the recovery and deployment of suppressed and heterogeneoussub ect positions, the unmasking of universal concepts as differential markers of race, class, orgender, the deployment of rhetorical figurations as %governing representations& in contemporarypolitics, or the current struggles against newly intensified forms of discipline and the subse2uentrefashioning of resistant selves and alternative !political" spaces from the cultural materials athand, these critics demonstrate that our fundamental enlightenment categories have beencon ured from the acts of e(clusion, sub ugation, and repression that attended their origin.Attempts to unsettle these constructions reveal that the shifting terrain of postmodernity owesmuch of its instability to the already$present fault lines that traverse its enlightenmentfoundations. [ &] /he current contests are fought in and along these seams as attempts to dispersea singular origin, resist homogeni ing categories, e(pose settled vocabularies, practices, andinstitutions as strategic deployments of power, and reveal the modern sub ect of enlightenedreason as discursively and historically constructed, as the effect of a struggle over meanings asmuch as the author of those meanings.Such struggles continue to redefine the contours of the present political moment, and they haveprovoked lively, often acrimonious, debates in recent years !and across a wide range of academicdisciplines" about the meaning, status, and fate of modernity and the :nlightenment. 1uch ofthis controversy has been articulated through the u(taposition of temporal categories, in termsof succeeding—and embattled—periods or eras' postindustrialism, postphilosophy,poststructuralism, post$1ar(ism, and posthistoire confront and attempt to replace their prefi(less

affiliates. *ut the central terms of this contest, around which the greatest controversy turns, arethe categories modern and postmodern, and the crucial figures in that debate are 48rgen9abermas and the late 1ichel )oucault.In articulating the dilemmas, disappointments, and aspirations of our time, 9abermas and)oucault have largely defined the controversy over the origins, meaning, and future ofpostmodernity. >irtually every current theoretical reflection on politics takes its bearings fromtheir coordinates and engages their positions, if not by way of agreement, then certainly by wayof criti2ue. [ ' ] 3et these chartings of postmodern geography issue in two radically divergentcartographic pro ections of the present, two contending and ultimately irreconcilable maps, whichleave little room for further e(ploration. /he result has been a debate whose terms havecongealed into rigid polarities. Are we to understand the recent shifts as instances of a reactiveand pathological politics generated by the unresolved contradictions within modernity itself, or asthe material out of which new political sub ects, selves, identities, and practices are fashioned?5o the answers to such contradictions lie in the reconstruction of reason and the reaffirmation ofsuch universal values as liberty, autonomy, and democratic e2uality, or must we deconstructreason, radically redefine those values as pro ections of power, and overcome all forms of









universality? an we retrieve and reinstitutionali e a democratic public sphere from the materialsleft us by the eighteenth century, or shall we disrupt its normatively regulated democratic codewith a performative and endlessly subversive politics of parody?/hese 2uestions do not admit of easy answers, and given a contest structured by such unyieldingoppositions, it is unlikely that anything new can be said in its present terms. 3et such 2uestionsneed answers, and finding them is the challenge confronting us. /his study forges neither amodern nor a postmodern path through the disputed terrain, siding with neither 9abermas nor

)oucault. +or does it seek to reconcile the contending sides through a mediation that would, ingood 9egelian fashion, effect a grand synthesis of the two positions and so cauteri e the dialecticof the debate. I want, rather, to resist the terms of the debate and disturb its pro ections, to plotan alternative route through this shifting landscape by mapping the alien thought of ancientAthens onto the terrain of postmodernity. /his mapping intends to open up fresh possibilities fordialogue by prompting new and different combinations of tired patterns and tested paths, byunsettling present accommodations with ways of being and modes of knowing that are no longerfamiliar. *ut before I begin to trace the route taken by this book, it is best to survey the terrainalready mapped out in the dispute between 9abermas and )oucault./he lines of that dispute were solidified, if not drawn, some ten years ago when 9abermas tookup the challenge issued by the neostructuralist criti2ue of reason. #i2ued by this +iet schean$inspired attack on the emancipatory pro ect of modernity, 9abermas initiated the first serious

dialogue between the German and )rench intellectual traditions in recent memory. [ 1( ] )oucaultdied before he could actively oin the dispute, so it was left to others !of whom there has been noshortage" to advance his position. As a result, the controversy over the transition from modernityto postmodernity—the %debate& between 9abermas and )oucault sketched here—represents lessa chronicle of actual e(changes than a charting of the significant points that structure theirdifferences. /hose differences constitute nothing less than a struggle over terms suchas enlightenment,truth,theory, and democracy, which are fundamental to securing—defining—thecharacter of postmodernity and its fate. /he meaning of enlightenment itself, the possibility ofknowledge liberated from power or interest, the status of theoretical discourse, and the future ofdemocratic culture and practice are currently up for grabs. Although the contest sketched heremust remain something of a historical fiction, it accurately and usefully represents theoppositions and predicaments in which the dispute over postmodernity has entangled itself./o the e(tent that 9abermas looks to the unreali ed potential of modernity, he allies himself withthe progressive and emancipatory claims of enlightenment. /he completion of cultural modernitymeans for him the reali ation of such liberal and universal bourgeois goals as autonomy, e2uality,liberty, and emancipation—in short, all the goals of enlightened reason. /he problem withmodernity is not, as his +iet scheans claim, too much reason—an e(cess—but rather too little—adeficit. :nlightenment has not reversed itself0 rather, rationali ation has either not yet beenachieved, has not been institutionali ed, or has proceeded one$sidedly in favor of an instrumentalreason embodied in technical$scientific enterprises, the capitalist economy, and the bureaucraticstate. +one of this means, of course, that the enlightenment pro ect of emancipation is unsoundor that its liberatory potential is in any way seriously diminished or threatened. It does mean thatthe modern enlightenment has not yet achieved its potential and must therefore complete its

%pro ect.& [ 11 ]

)oucault re ects the very assumptions on which enlightenment is predicated, ironically observing

that the enlightenment rhetoric of liberation—whether it is bound up with the discourses ofpsychological, physical, or social therapies—insidiously contains and conceals its own subtleforms of coercion. <ational speech surely establishes communication, but it also establishesbarriers to communication. /he streamlined, functional, and efficient language of modern science—both natural and social—achieves a transparency of description that serves to e(clude orsilence the elements of e(perience that do not fit neatly into a preconceived schema. <unthrough the endless mills of speech, we are constantly in danger of falling prey to the varioustechni2ues of truth that promise to make us free, enlightened, autonomous beings, techni2uesthat promise liberation even as they deprive us of our liberty. %/he irony of this deployment,&writes )oucault, %is in having us believe that our @liberation- is in the balance.& [ 12 ] :nlightenmentthus parado(ically brings both liberation and slavery, freedom and constraint, self$conscioustransparency and blind opacity about who we are and what we are doing.

/o redeem the promise of the :nlightenment, 9abermas elaborates a theory of communicativerationality as both diagnostic aid and normative ideal. A more differentiated concept ofcommunicative reason allows him to preserve and pursue a selective criti2ue of modernity, thespread of instrumental rationality, and the attendant coloni ation of potentially democratic









political space, which further depends on the elaboration of an %ideal speech situation.&=ncoerced speech guarantees a strong normative standard, freed from the constraints ofstructural violence, ine2uality, and communicative distortion. ;nly under such conditions of

%rationally motivated agreement&—the telos implicit in all human speech—can we distinguishbetween genuine and false consensus, the legitimate and illegitimate e(ercise of power, ust andun ust regimes. [ 13 ]

*ut 9abermas-s appeal to the %unforced force of the better argument& only works if he can

specify a rationality that is truly universal, conte(t$independent, and freed from every constraintof passion or interest. )or )oucault, this 2uest for universal agreement is but the modernanalogue of Socratic dialogue, which seeks to limit power by appealing to knowledge of the good.*ut since all discourse already contains its own politics of truth, there can be no truth e(terior toany particular discursive regime. #ower and knowledge are ine(tricably intertwined in arelationship of mutual constitution. /he Socratic hope of a knowledge beyond the limits of power,which it would in turn limit, is a fiction. #ower can neither be the manifestation of consensus northe product of communication. #ower, rather, is strategic. In the move and countermove of agame, power comes into play as %a relationship which is at the same time reciprocal incitationand struggle, less a face to face confrontation which paraly es both sides than a permanentprovocation.& +either the pristine model of Socratic dialogue nor the ideal speech situations thatissue in community and consent, but the sophistic %agonism& of constant contest, struggle, andresistance, %the endlessly repeated play of dominations,& best describes modern power relations,as well as )oucault-s own subversion of hegemonic discourses. [ 1 ]

Although 9abermas wishes to distinguish his further differentiation of reason and the selectivecriti2ue of modernity that follows it from what he regards as %total& theories, he is still engagedin e(plaining and critici ing a societywide phenomena. Is such a global discourse so bad? Afterall, a conceptual system such as critical theory interprets a comple( world and in that regard is anecessary component of our everyday lives. Systems call for an orderly organi ation andpresentation of e(perience, without which we could not survive. 1oreover, critical theory hardlyconstitutes an apology or ustification for present social and political configurations. =nlike thatmaster of all systems$thinkers, 9egel, 9abermas in no way offers another theodicean e(planationfor suffering. /he difficulty for theory construction—critical theory included—is to make sense outof the world of people and things while doing it, and them, the least violence possible. Allconceptual thought must negotiate the distance between too much unity and coherence and toolittle, between the system and the individual, between global and local discourse. [ 1! ]

Where critical theory universali es the concept of reason by implicitly relying on theenlightenment narrative of progress, )oucault suspects all master narratives as %global& theoriesthat attempt to unify the irreducible heterogeneity of the world. )or the genealogist, it isprecisely critical theory-s claim systematically to encompass the whole of reality that condemnsit. Against a conceptual system like 9abermas-s, )oucault-s genealogies consistently remind thereader of the tremendous and irreparable damage wrought by modernity, which the criticaltheorist is apt to overlook. )oucault continually invokes the lives that have been damaged, lost,or destroyed, the e(periences that have been elided, sub ugated, or repressed by the smooth,seamless functioning of hierarchically ordered systems of knowledge. /his invocation of thesuppressed contents of history—of individuals and their lives who do not fit into the systemwithout remainder—aims to resist, disrupt, subvert, and otherwise contest the tyranny of

globali ing discourses. [ 1$ ]Above all, 9abermas and )oucault have underscored the dilemmas of democracy in thepostmodern world. ;riginally construed as a radical, transformative force in modernity,democracy now appears tame, its revolutionary capacity !at least in eastern :urope" spent,channeled into the search for markets, consumer goods, and Western technology. At home, theimperatives of the accumulation of capital and power have all but eroded what democratic publicspace we might have had. Against this trend, critical theory aims at securing and maintaining aspace for democratic speech and action that cannot be absorbed by the systemic constraints ofmaterial reproduction. /his space would contain institutions to guarantee an effectivelyfunctioning democratic public sphere, in which the goals of society were submitted to publicdiscussion and decisions made based on the rational achievement of agreement. ;nly in thismanner will deliberating citi ens, speaking and acting together, secure and maintain a viabledemocratic public sphere. [ 1%]

5espite this genuine concern with consensus and democratic will formation, there is a blind spotin the theory of consensus that conceals democracy-s potentially normali ing effects. Although9abermas no longer posits the %ideal speech situation& as a transcendental category, his weaker













claim that consensus is immanent in all speech still implies an ideal or norm that e(cludes othernonrational forms of e(pression as invalid because they fall below or outside the acceptablethreshold of normality, of what counts as a reasonable or rational argument. /hat e(clusion, ofcourse, is all the more insidious because it is concealed by the promise of freedom. /he verydemocratic norms that critical theory champions—in this case, those enabling the free, rational,and responsible agent to arrive at uncoerced consensus—function to delegitimate all that is

%other& in self and society. /hose feelings, motives, e(periences, and desires that remain

inarticulate within the schema prescribed by an ideal discourse subse2uently become the ob ectsof disciplinary control and normali ation. What 9abermas specifies as the distinctivecharacteristics of democratic character and culture seem to satisfy criteria of symmetry andreciprocity. 3et those necessary 2ualities obscure the very real power e(ercised by the politics ofcultural hegemony. In his failure to ask which sub ects and what forms of selfhood are privilegedor empowered by this version of the democratic self, 9abermas similarly fails to identify thoseselves that are silenced, sub ugated, or disempowered by such a privileging. )oucault, to hiscredit, has taught us to recogni e in the culture of democratic consensus the dangers of this drifttoward those homogeni ing and dividing practices that define, contain, and discipline theindividual. *ut can postmodern democrats rest content with )oucault-s concept of %resistance&—ofthe local struggle against regimes of power knowledge—as a viable contribution to a theory ofdemocratic politics?Such are the dilemmas of postmodernity sketched within the contours of the present controversy./his contest leaves us with a series of unsatisfying choices' either an enlightened modernity blindto its coercive effects or the renunciation of all forms of emancipatory practice as subtle forms ofnormali ing control0 either the effects of a truth that naively conceals its debt to power or anendless struggle for position and dominance0 either a foundational theory unaware of its ownviolent e(clusions or the repudiation of all theoretical foundations0 and, finally, either ademocratic practice and culture resting on constitutive e(clusions or the re ection of democracyas one more element in the ensemble of disciplinary technologies. What these choices ultimatelysuggest—and why they must be resisted—is a refusal to think the difficult dilemmas ofpostmodernity in tension, to imagine the contradictions within these categories !and within the:nlightenment itself" as fruitful ground for further e(ploration, rather than as obstacles to beremoved. )or the very impasse of the debate indicates that the unsettling dangers of disruption,contest, contingency, and resistance that disturb our lives can no more be displaced or avoided

than the comfortable seductions of order, truth, reason, and democratic progress that make suchdisturbances both necessary and meaningful. Whereas critical theory succumbs too readily to theeasy nostalgia of settlement and permanence !while remaining fearfully impervious to theliberating aspects of disturbance", genealogy celebrates the dangerous freedom of contingencyand contest, while dismissing the force and appeal of order, center, and stability. I would like tothink there are choices here, but I am not willing to concede that they are the ones offered by9abermas and )oucault. In a debate that has been constructed far too narrowly, its terms overlypolari ed, their responses constitute subtle evasions of the difficult task of negotiating theperple(ing terrain of the postmodernity these theorists have themselves so painstakingly charted.As a preliminary indication of my own direction of travel across that terrain, I would like to posethese dilemmas differently, perceptibly altering the frame of reference. an we remain committedto the principles of the :nlightenment, yet resist its regressive tendencies toward domination? Is

it possible to pursue the truth yet relentlessly politici e the conditions of its production? an wesatisfy our profound need to make sense of the world through the construction of theoreticalwholes and still disturb such orderly representations so as to resist the seductive tyranny ofglobali ing discourse? )inally, what are the prospects for encouraging a democratic culture andpractice that simultaneously resist democracy-s drift toward normali ation and disciplinarycontrol? /hese 2uestions, while acknowledging the force of the dilemma, open up more room forthought, more opportunity for recombining old patterns in new ways. /o think these oppositionsin tension is the central ob ect of this study, which does not rest content with either regulativereason codified as disciplinary norm or the endless subversion of all normative codes. *ut whereshall we turn for help in negotiating the ironic reversals of the :nlightenment, the politici ation ofknowledge, the seductions and dangers of foundational theory, the dilemmas of democracy? 1yanswer' the tragic poetry and philosophical dialogue of ancient Athens.Whether we want to reconstruct an effectively functioning democratic politics or disrupt newlyintensified forms of discipline, the classical past offers an alternative way of thinking about ourpresent predicament that a thoroughgoing modern !or postmodern" perspective lacks. If, as)oucault suggests, we are indeed %normali ing& ourselves via ever more efficient mechanisms of



surveillance, discipline, and sub ectification, then Greek tragedy-s e(amples of virtuosic action, aswell as its preoccupation with the %other,& with what falls below, behind, or beyond the thresholdof the culturally and socially acceptable and intelligible, will provide an indispensable point ofreference for identifying and disrupting modern forces of normali ation and discipline from withina democratic tradition. If, as 9abermas has argued, economic and bureaucratic forms ofrationality are systematically eroding and replacing the communicative structures of publicspeech and action !upon which democratic politics largely depend", then the concern of Greek

tragedy and philosophical dialogue with moral communication and debate—the deliberativeaspects of the classical polis—can stand as a valuable resource for contemporary democratictheory and practice, even as they warn us of the potentially normali ing effects of democraticconsensus. Greek tragedy and philosophical dialogue contribute most toward theori ing thepresent when their disturbing content is wrenched out of its original conte(t and appropriated todisrupt the established norms and forms of democratically constituted selves and societies, evenas they provide a democratic identity and practice against which to struggle.

• • •

Tragedy and )n*ighten"ent

/he theoretical and political predicament that our postmodern condition poses to contemporary

thought provides the framework within which the following chapters pursue their arguments. In aseries of staged encounters with four classical te(ts, I intervene in the current controversy overthe character, legacy, and fate of the :nlightenment. /hose encounters consider !B" the meaningof enlightenment, !C" the relationship between truth and power, !D" the nature and status oftheoretical discourse, and !E" the dilemmas of democratic culture and practice. 3et these issues,and the political struggles that surround them, are neither uni2ue nor confined solely to thepresent. Indeed, there is an instructive analogy here' the dilemmas be2ueathed contemporarytheory by the modern enlightenment are strikingly similar to those posed to classical thought byits ancient counterpart. #hilosopher and Sophist, reason and rhetoric, the will to truth and thewill to power, the search for ultimate foundations and the repudiation of such searches—these area few of the recurring themes that inhabit the landscapes of enlightenment both ancient andmodern. ;ne of my aims is to press at the limits of this analogy by reading two classicaltragedies and two dialogues in terms of these four %contemporary& issues. hapter C considersSophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos in terms of enlightenment and its conse2uences. hapter Delaborates a politics of truth as articulated in the Gorgias. hapter E investigates the status oftheoretical foundations with the help of #lato-s Republic, and chapter F turns toAeschylus-s Oresteia for lessons in negotiating the dilemmas of democracy./his book also aims to challenge the privileging of the modern !or postmodern" present over thepremodern past, and so to disrupt the myth of history as progress, a goal it shares with Greektragedy. /hat strategy is as evident in the form or architecture of the book—in its structuralarticulation—as in its overt argumentative moves. *y bringing the theoretical and political powerof the classical past %on stage,& so to speak, I hope to challenge our most deeply heldassumptions about the superiority of the present associated with reason, enlightenment,progress, and democracy, and so to reveal the e(clusions and acts of violence these values oftenconceal. /he formal structure of the book reiterates this theoretical intention by reordering, and

so disrupting, the usual historical !and moral" se2uence in which tragedy gives way to the moretheoretically %advanced& form of philosophy. I therefore order the chapters in a chiasmus !A* ''*A"' tragedy and dialogue are followed by dialogue and tragedy ! OedipusTyrannos,Gorgias '' Republic,Oresteia "./his structured destructuring of the conventional progression performs a reversal by privilegingtragedy over philosophy. It also reflects the book-s u(taposition of classical past to postmodernpresent, an appropriation of classical tragedy-s own staged confrontation between contemporary,democratic Athens and its mythical, aristocratic past. /he tragedy and philosophical dialogue ofclassical Athens are read as e(pressions of the most recent political concerns, while thelineaments of the postmodern present are discerned in the contours of the most archaic past./he ancient thus appears meaningful in light of the present, while the most modern is associatedwith past anti2uity. Such a u(taposition disturbs both the conventional supersession of tragedy

by philosophy and those comfortable teleologies that culminate in the present, thus interruptingthe flow of progress by means of a device supplied by tragedy itself. /he chiasmus is thestructure of recognition and reversal so integral, if we are to believe Aristotle, to the power of



tragedy. /hat structure and its sensibility inform my own attempt to read the present in termssupplied by the past, while still maintaining contemporary political and theoretical concerns./he sophisticated literary structures of tragedy and dialogue, the way the formal elements ofcomposition can be made to yield a critical reflection on history as progress—provide one reasonfor turning to these specific te(ts. *ut this book is not primarily about the literary achievementsof the ancients, even if it does seek to wring out meaning precisely where dramatic structure andsubstantive argument intersect in comple( articulation. /o reiterate, my readings are intended to

contribute to the contemporary struggle over the meaning of terms central to our theoretical andpolitical discourse, terms that were as contested in fifth$century Athens as they are now.I begin with Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos as a paradigmatic articulation of the triumphs andfailures of enlightened thinking, an e(emplary !and tragic" tale of enlightenment and its highlyambivalent conse2uences. Sophocles asks us to reflect on the nature and certainty of ourknowledge, on what we know, how we know it, and what such knowledge is worth. /he playpresents ;edipus as supremely confident, a man of native intelligence, skill, and wit willing toabandon all inherited custom, tradition, and limits in his single$minded search for the truth. In atypically ironic reversal, however, ;edipus-s upward path to enlightenment leads painfully backtoward /hebes, his mother-s bed, and himself. /he playwright thus reveals the double nature ofenlightenment—its triumphant ability to disclose and command the secrets of nature whilesimultaneously sub ugating the sub ect it meant to empower. ;edipus-s in2uiry into his own birth

reveals no happy origin, but rather the horror and violence of murder and incest. +o lucky childof chance, ;edipus proves the slayer of his father and husband of his mother, the unhappy son of7aius and 4ocasta, his all$too$human parents. 7urking ust below the smooth contours of surfacecalm and light lie the rupture, turbulence, and violence upon which his identity rests. /he %truth&behind ;edipus is not inviolable identity, but unutterable disparity. ;edipus learns that he is

%double&— ust as conscious of the powers that constitute his identity as his characteristicintellectual self$conceit allows. :nlightenment is thus both a blessing and a curse to ;edipus !andto us", revealing both the power and the limits of man-s rational intelligence. Sophocles certainlycelebrates the accomplishments of enlightened reason—the ordered art of his te(t participates inthat process—but he also issues a warning to the modern reader, whose privileged historicalposition and tested critical methods promise to reveal the ultimate meaning of the play in all itstransparency. 7ike ;edipus, we too are constituted by forces beyond our control, even as we tryto shape the forces that constitute us. With Sophocles- hero, we seem destined endlessly torepeat incestuous beginnings despite the fact that we count ourselves emancipated, autonomous,and enlightened. /his fundamental ambiguity—about the value of enlightenment—that structuresSophocles- te(t renders Oedipus Tyrannos particularly helpful in thinking through the dilemmas ofpostmodernity. Sophocles is particularly good to think with, I argue, because his tragedy pointsto an ethos that combines, in rather uneasy tension, the drive to fulfill the emancipatory pro ectof enlightenment with a relentless criticism of enlightenment-s conceits, a criticism meant todisrupt its normali ing and regressive effects. I therefore look to Sophocles for help in elaboratingan epistemology of disruption, a post$:nlightenment sensibility that will reinstate a secularappreciation of the ambiguities, contradictions, and mysteries of a world that enlightenment,both ancient and modern, seems bent on suppressing.Oedipus Tyrannos also concerns the relationship of truth to power. 5oes all knowledge, it asks,ultimately refer back to man himself, to his sub ective purposes and plans, no matter how petty

or how noble? Is ;edipus truly a self$taught, self$created man, the child of chance, able to confermeaning and produce truth at will? Is man the measure of all things, or is there an ob ective !inthis case, sacred" order, a set of standards or an ultimate %truth& free from the manipulation ofrationally ambitious humans and their 2uest for power? Sophocles- chorus contemplates thesepossibilities, when, alarmed at a growing skepticism toward the truth of Apollo-s oracle, it fearsfor ;edipus and for itself. )or if ;edipus is right, and such order as the world possesses is nomore than the pro ection of the strong man-s will to power, then it makes no sense to % oin in thesacred dance to honor the gods& ! HE HF". /he chorus would rather ;edipus prove murderer ofhis father and husband to his mother than the oracle false. 7uckily, the oracle proves true, and;edipus-s suffering is not without transcendent meaning. /here is an ob ective order to the world,Sophocles suggests, although knowledge of that order comes only after long and intensesuffering, only in the end, and only to blind men e(iled from family, wealth, and power. /ruththere is, but it proves of no help in the affairs of men. /hat is the lesson ;edipus learns, but theplay as a whole perhaps teaches the spectators something different—namely, a kind of self$knowledge that is sustained by the memory of ;edipus-s own ignorance about himself. Sophoclesthus anticipates Socrates by teaching through the play what ;edipus learns so painfully in it.



Socrates, too, is concerned with the relationship between truth and power, and e(plores it interms of philosophy-s !and the philosopher-s" place in the city. In the Apology, Socrates gives anaccount of his philosophical way of life and its role in Athens. /he central part of that account,and hence of philosophical activity, concerns the e(tent to which %truth& e(ists independently ofthe influence and effects of power. Is there such a truth, Socrates asks, or is all knowledgecreated, produced, and shaped in and through the workings of power and interest, as hissophistic opponents claim? 7ike Sophocles, Socrates also believes in an ob ective order of

knowledge, but it is one that we as mortals can never fully grasp. We can appro(imate that order,but as partial beings confined to particular places, times, and physical bodies, we shall neverentirely be able to apprehend it. Such a limitation does not, however, deter the philosopher fromhis 2uest for knowledge of the good. :ven in the face of death, Socrates remains committed tothe belief that an ob ective order of knowledge e(ists, free of the constraints of power andinterest. 9e further believes that such knowledge ought to guide the political affairs of the city.Socratic philosophy also suggests that such foundational knowledge is intersub ective in animportant sense, achieved neither in the mantic inspiration of prophetic divination nor in theprivacy of theoretical contemplation, but rather in the give$and$take of moral communication anddebate. /his communicative aspect of truth does not, however, obviate the problem of power.Socratic dialogues are not merely paradigms of the %ideal speech situation.& [ 1& ] In fact, #latointroduces the problem of domination directly into those dialogues that aim to free themselvesfrom ust such an entanglement, and by means of a figure who professes to care more for thetruth than for wealth, honor, and fame !or winning the argument". A series of 2uestions arisesregarding the aims of Socrates' is the %interest& of the philosopher in moral truth such that ittranscends interest altogether? 5oes Socrates in fact care only for the good, or is he, as alliclesthought and +iet sche firmly believed, concealing his will to power behind a rather thinmetaphysical veil born of weakness and its accompanying ressentiment of the strong? /hepractice of Socratic philosophy, with all its claims to ignorance and the authentic search for

%truth,& might in the end be structured by resentment and constitute a subtle strategy ofdomination. /he Gorgias shows us the stakes involved in the struggle over who will set the termsof discourse, a struggle that suggests that the norms of society are decided politically as much asthey are derived theoretically. [ 1' ] In terms elaborated by 9abermas, the Gorgias asks us toconsider whether Socrates truly seeks communicatively achieved understanding through the

%unforced force of the better argument& or is simply a clever player in the endless game of

domination, as )oucault suspects. I argue that the dialogue resists both these alternatives,adopting an ironic stance toward the politics of truth that both pro ects Socratic dialogue as theultimate arbiter of politics and contests that pro ection through the agonistic struggle betweenSocrates and allicles—an agon that leads not to annihilation but to the perpetual activity ofcontests.In chapter D, I thus turn to the Gorgias for help in negotiating the unstable terrain that liesbetween dialogue and domination, consensus and contest, philosophical discourse and rhetoricalperformance, polarities that structure much of the opposition between critical theory andgenealogy. I argue that the Gorgias provides us with an alternative route through that terrain, asit tirelessly searches for the truth, all the while pointing out that even the most philosophical of2uestions are bound to struggles for position, that philosophy indeed presupposes a politics, andthat these terms—philosophy and politics, dialectic and rhetoric, prosaic truth and poetic power—

remain essentially contested in the agonistic economy of the dialogue. /he Gorgias rendersproblematic its own !and our" tendency to eliminate the agon, to settle once and for all themeanings of such contested terms as virtue,justice,goodness and !political" health. I thus look tothe dialogue to provide a post$philosophical sensibility that reinscribes a genealogical disturbanceof all philosophical foundations within the humanist goal of securing such foundations as one ofthe preconditions for politics.#lato-s Republic e(presses a similar tension between the impulse to sink the foundations ofpolitics in a ground beyond contest and a te(tual practice that persistently disrupts its bid forcomfortable theoretical closure, between the tyranny of globali ing discourse and thegenealogical mobili ation of the margins against the center. In the language of tragedy,the Republic sustains a tension between %the search for a single form& and %the irreduciblerichness of human value& that attends its heroic attempt to order the world through the powersof human intellect. ;n the face of it though, #lato seems to re ect such ambiguities and tensions./he philosopher of the ideal city controls the world, as well as the men and women in it, throughreason alone. /he Republic argues that a polis and a life can be properly ordered by knowledge ofthe Good so as to avoid the tragic failures of human progress adumbrated by Sophocles and







suffered by his ;edipus. /he Republic seems to banish, not only tragedy and the tragic poets, butthe very conflicts born of intense human commitment to irreconcilable values. #lato so constructsa theory of the good and a hierarchy of life plans that the tragic choice of an Agamemnon wouldnot arise as a possibility. *ut should we look upon this strategy as an enlightened advance overthe %primitive or benighted stage of ethical life and thought& tragedy represents? [ 2( ]

/here are two problems with this view. )irst, it fails to recogni e tragedy-s own impulse to createa determinate solution to the problem of conflict, an impulse present within the form and

structure of tragedy itself. Alongside the tragic view of human life, tragedies contain the origin ofthe denial of that view. Second, although the Republic contains a strong impulse to deny thetragic view and impose its own totali ing vision on the world, it reveals to us the seductivedangers involved in reducing the comple(ity and indeterminacy of human life. /he ideal cityresembles a Sparta partial to philosophy, it begins to decay as soon as it is constructed, and aphilosopher like Socrates would be the first person banished from its gates, all of which shouldmake us think twice about the %wisdom& of re ecting the tragic view. #lato-s Republic suggests !atleast on this reading" that the attempt to order the world by means of a foundationalistepistemology runs the risk of a reductionism reminiscent of Agamemnon at Aulis or ;edipus at/hebes. Such grandiose schemes to assert mastery over nature, men and women, and ourselvesdisplay the fundamental ambiguity that attends even our best efforts to order and circumscribeour lives. If tragedy contains the possibility of finding %solutions& to the moral and politicalconflicts it e(plores, then the Republic voices its own suspicions about the very solutions to suchconflicts proposed by philosophy. /he Republic, on this reading, subtly refuses the oppositionbetween a critical theory intent on securing its own normative foundations and a genealogicalanti$theory bent on disrupting all totali ing forms of discourse. #lato-s dialogue thus gives voiceto a post$foundationalist theoretical imagination that proves useful in negotiating the difficultterrain of theory construction by virtue of its simultaneous construal and denial of any systematictheoretical !and political" order. /he Republic accomplishes this task by elaborating a %te(tualagonistics,& an orderly discourse that interrupts, subverts, and disturbs its own pro ections oforder.In chapter F, I turn to the Oresteia of Aeschylus to confront the difficulties of democracy and topoint toward the possibility of what William onnolly has called a %democratic politics ofdisturbance,& a politics that combines the democratic aspirations of critical theory with anattendant politics of resistance that disrupts and otherwise unsettles the normali ing tendenciesof democracy-s stable order. Such a democratic politics would seek, like the Oresteia itself, toproblemati e the sedimentations and accretions of cultural practices and norms that constitutethe self and order, even as it provides democratic norms and identities against which to struggle.In my reading of the Oresteia, civic discourse !centered around establishing a meaning for

ustice" and gender hierarchy !returning women to their %natural& places" are %normal&categories, which are disrupted and transgressed from the very beginning of the trilogy rightthrough to the moment of their inscription on the body politic in the final and foundational act ofthe drama. /he norms of language and the norms of se(uality, democratic politics and the politicsof difference—these are the themes that govern my appropriation of Aeschylus for acontemporary politics capable of radically democrati ing difference./he Oresteia also broaches the themes of communication and contest, consensus and coercion,debate and domination, already raised in the Gorgias. Aeschylus-s drama directly confronts the

multiple ways in which language can be !mis"used, how it establishes barriers to, ust as easilyas it enhances, communication. 7anguage most obviously serves domination in and throughlytemnestra-s masterful deception of Agamemnon. A powerful king and fierce warrior, he is slain

naked in the bath by a treacherous woman—a shameful death in the eyes of the Argive elders.3et lytemnestra-s duplicitous manipulation of words and their meanings only tells half the storyof the linguistic disintegration that besets Argos. It is not only this 2ueen with a man$counselingheart who transgresses the boundaries of speech. :veryone in the trilogy manipulates languagein a way favorable to his, her, or their interests' Agamemnon claims ustice for his sacrifice ofIphigeneia, Apollo !defending ;restes" likewise ustifies the murder of lytemnestra, while the)uries assert the ustice of their prosecution of ;restes for his act of matricide. At stake inthe Oresteia, then, is the meaning of justice itself, and the trilogy dramati es the difficultiesinvolved in reaching an agreement on the meaning of a word to which so many forces andinterests lay claim. When Athena finally establishes the law court, she also founds a discursiveorder and space for the city and fi(es the meaning of ustice within it. /hat order defines whichprinciples and which interests have the greatest voice, and which are relegated to relativesilence.





Aeschylus-s trilogy would seem the ancient validation of 9abermas-s enlightenment narrative, anarchaic e(ample of reasoned deliberation or discourse' the drama moves from chaos to order,darkness to light, perversion to normalcy, miscommunication to mutual understanding andreconciliation. /his movement of progress occurs within the medium of a dramatic structure thatreconciles conflicting forces and competing claims' chthonic with ;lympian divinities, the olderwith the younger generation, Greek with barbarian, men with women. /he trilogy thus traces theemergence of the democratic polis back to the foundation of a civic discourse rooted in rationally

achieved consensus and dramati ed in the trial scene of the Eumenides. Successfulcommunication replaces the deceitful manipulation of language as the new world of thedemocratic polis triumphs over the troubled order of the dynastic past. /he rational and creativeprinciple of free consensus replaces what is local, natural, traditional, affective, and inherited. Inthe language of critical theory, the Oresteia attains its ust and legitimate order, not throughnormatively ascribed agreement, but through communicatively achieved understanding.3et the conclusion of the Oresteia is far more ambiguous than this rationalist interpretation of theplay allows. /he trilogy certainly legitimates a democratic civic discourse and establishes a centerthat values what is new, democratic, rational, and masculine over what is traditional, filial,affective, and feminine. *ut it also disrupts its own comfortable teleology of progress, reason,and democratic ustice in a %genealogical& movement of criti2ue. /he ambiguous establishment ofthe Areopagus by Athena complicates any easy attempt to read the Oresteia as a celebration ofprogress, successful communication, and democratic inclusion. /he figure of Athena underminesthe e2uation between masculine reason, democratic discourse, and the ultimate !celebratory"meaning of the drama through her own ambivalent status. /his trilogy, already so full oftransgressions and manipulations, ends not only with the achievement of clear and transparentcommunication, nor merely with the restoration of conflicting forces to their proper places.

onsensus of a kind is achieved, but by a manipulative rhetoric, which the trilogy seeks toovercome, and through a se(ually ambivalent figure who transgresses the very norms of gendershe seeks to establish. /he Oresteia institutes and legitimates a hierarchy of values based onsubse2uently valori ed democratic %norms& that tend to normali e its sub ects by establishingwhat %counts& as acceptable democratic practice and discourse. *ut the trilogy also shows us howdifference can become domination and that the hierarchy it establishes is ultimately un ustifiablein the terms of the discourse that establishes it. /he Oresteia is instructive because it revealshow the democratic sub ect relies on the constitution of se(ual difference, and how that

difference is %naturali ed& or made essential through the production of a %feminine other& as thatprivileged sub ect-s founding repudiation. Aeschylus thus elaborates the contours of a democraticpolitics of disturbance that resists the sedimented norms of a consensually achieved self andorder even as it provides democratic norms against which to struggle.

• • •

+ea,,ro,riating the Past

/he seductions of nostalgia, of romantici ing a past that perhaps never was, threaten to disableeven the most imaginative use of the Greek past. /his study in no way entails a %return to theGreeks,& which is neither possible !inter alia, because we have not yet taken our full leave ofanti2uity" nor desirable. +eeded here is a strategy of appropriation, one that neither ignores the

importance of historical conte(t nor succumbs to a thoroughly unimaginative use of the pastforged from a rigid obedience to the present. /he strategy I propose appropriates the Greeks bymeans of a %conceptual displacement,& a forced mapping of the Greek concepts onto our modern!or postmodern" conte(t. Wrenching these concepts out of their ancient conte(t does notreconcile them with contemporary social and political reality0 rather, it underscores thedifferences between them. )or to be dis$placed means to be badly or ill placed, to be placedwhere one does not belong, to be an ancient Athenian playwright or philosopher in apostcapitalist, postcommunist, postmodern society. It signals irrelevance. /o be badly or ill placedalso implies being out of place ! atopos "' to be strange, alien, or unfamiliar. /o be displaced !as inphysics", however, means to be placed or moved to one side, to make room or make way forsomeone or something./hese latter meanings are significant for my own strategy of displacement, where to be out of

place or placed aside have their appropriate and useful virtues' Greek concepts and claims %inappropriately& mapped onto the alien terrain of contemporary politics and theory create visibledifferences, throwing into relief those practices and beliefs that routinely go unnoticed andunchallenged. *y dis$placing the Greeks, we also place them alongside us, as an alien pro ection



of what we believe we no longer are. Such a mapping enables us to see ourselves anew andstimulates fresh thought about familiar circumstances, while the u(taposition of the Greeks asthe %other& allows us to investigate 2uestions crucial to the present, provoking us to reflect onthe suppressed, ignored, or otherwise concealed aspects of our practices and identities. With)oucault, we can regard such conceptual displacement as an opportunity for %getting free ofourselves.& [ 21 ]

+one of this is unfamiliar to Greek tragedy. /ragedy regularly appropriated the archaisms of the

city-s ancient myths to illuminate and interrogate the contours of the present and its values. Inits confrontation of opposites, the presentation of the strange, the alien, the unfamiliar, and theliminal, Greek tragedy called the greatest achievements and most important precepts of itscivili ation into 2uestion' it routinely u(taposed heroic kingship to democratic citi enship, archaiclyric to contemporary prose, the violence of the past to the comforts of the present, all within thescope of a performance that challenged the efficacy of human progress, ustice, and polis life.[ 22 ] Similarly, tragic performances created an %other& place, a city such as mythical /hebesconstructed as a site of displacement, where Athens portrayed a city on stage that was radicallyother than itself. In that %other& scene, Athens would act out %2uestions crucial to the polis, tothe self, the family and society& by displacing them upon a city %imagined as the mirror oppositeof Athens.& [ 23 ] *y pro ecting itself onto the stage and into the mythical past of a !dis"place suchas mythical /hebes, Athens confronted the sub ugations, e(clusions, and denials that made upthe normal life of the city.A central argument of this book is that the tragedy and philosophical dialogue of the Greek polisprovide a distinctive model for appropriating the past and its critical potential. Greek tragedy andphilosophy themselves offer e(amples of how we might %use& the past to illuminate the contoursof the present. <ead this way, Greek tragedy and political philosophy help us e(ploit theimprobable relationship between the ancient concepts and our modern conte(t, making classicalGreece an %other& place for us, a topos where we can confront the implicit patterns, structures,and practices of our own lives. 1y fundamental premise is that the classical past can stand to ourpresent as the plays and dialogues of the poets and philosophers stood to the ancient city. 4ustas Greek tragedy and political theory provided the polis with a critical view of its public andprivate life, the classical past can provide us with a critical view of ours. A study of how Greektragedy and classical political theory %use& the past can teach us how to %use& Greek tragedy andclassical political theory in the present. [ 2 ]

1y appropriation of the drama and dialogue of classical Athens entails a strategy of interpretationas well. <eaders who insist on the canons of scholarly correctness will no doubt find themselvesdismayed at my apparent disregard of interpretive probity. Although I am conscious of thepolitical, cultural, and historical conte(ts in which literary and theoretical reflection occur, I amnot overly concerned with identifying the discursive fields and vocabularies in which a particularutterance may be situated. While it would be foolish to ignore the debt #lato-s philosophy owes tothe civic institution and cultural tradition of Attic tragedy, or to discount the influence of thesophistic enlightenment, the Athenian empire, or the plague on Sophocles- tragedy, the conte(tprovided is instructive, but not determinative, for interpretation. I am even less concerned withdiscovering what an author %meant&—with ascribing, then uncovering, the %original& meaning of ate(t. Sophocles undoubtedly had some particular meaning in mind when he composed histragedies, but such meaning eventually escapes even the most controlling and omniscient of

minds, if only because our assumptions, pre udices, and commitments can never become fullytransparent to us. /he playwright-s Oedipus Tyrannos provides a case study in the seductions anddangers of recovering sovereign intention, for nowhere does an actor-s life !or a would$beauthor-s" more tragically betray the noblest of intentions than on Sophocles- /heban stage.5iscounting authorial intention in no way implies, as it perhaps might for 9umpty 5umpty, that ate(t can mean anything one wants it to mean. /here are limits to the interpretive imagination,and those are imposed by the te(t itself.1y purpose is to %use& these te(ts to illuminate the meaning of contemporary political andtheoretical terms, to intervene in, and contribute to, the ongoing contest that constitutes ouridentity as modern or postmodern sub ects. In the service of this cause, I sometimes read myauthors and their works against themselves, often against their surface conclusions, andconsistently against canonical conventions. /here is comple( and contradictory meaning to bewrung from these te(ts, and the adventurous reader does not shrink from e(ploiting the fissuresin their seemingly smooth surfaces. /o turn these te(ts to contemporary uses, it is necessary toturn them against themselves, to read them out of conte(t, if not against their conte(t, to searchout the moments and places in and at which these te(ts !knowingly or not" subvert themselves,











and so can be made to say more that they originally might have meant. I believe the te(ts ofGreek tragedy and philosophical dialogue under consideration both invite and teach such areading, that one respects a te(t or a tradition, not by enshrining it, and so killing it, but by usingit so that it continues to live. /he irony here is that the Western philosophical %tradition& containswithin itself the means to think beyond the constraints it imposes, if only we are willing torefashion past stories for present purposes, as did the tragic playwrights. /he chapters onSophocles, Socrates, #lato, and Aeschylus that follow are e(ercises meant to push at the edges of

those constraints.I know of no contemporary theoretical work on the perple(ities of postmodernity that deploys theresources of its own tradition to such good effect as 1a( 9orkheimer and /heodorAdorno-s Dialectic o Enlightenment. /hese critics of the modern enlightenment adopt and adaptelements of that tradition in order to think the contradictions of the present, and they do so inways that directly recall the tragic playwrights. Indeed, a book that takes the tale of ;edipus-sown tragic enlightenment as emblematic of man-s blind attempt to assert the power of his reasonappropriately ends with a reflection on the work of 9orkheimer and Adorno. *ut there are otherreasons—besides the shared trope of enlightenment—both internal to the Dialectic and to myown pro ect, that invite, if not compel, such a reflection. #airing a Greek tragedy with Dialectic oEnlightenment makes perfect sense when we recall +iet sche-s importance to 9orkheimer andAdorno, and tragedy-s importance to +iet sche. [ 2! ]

It is therefore not at all coincidental that 9orkheimer and Adorno brought sensibilities that sharedmuch with Greek tragedy and theory to their analysis of contemporary crisis. Dialectic is athoroughly modern book, which nonetheless transgresses our modern academic categories anddistinctions' as poetic as it is theoretical, as philosophical as it is political, and as archaic in itstone and language as it is modern or postmodern, Dialectic o Enlightenment distinctlyappropriates and displays the style and sensibility of Greek tragedy and theory, while stillmaintaining its own contemporary concerns and purposes. [ 2$ ]

I am referring here to how 9orkheimer and Adorno reinsert the ancient sense of the tragic intocontemporary theori ing in a way that alerts us to the tremendous losses suffered in the name,and for the sake, of modernity—losses that liberal and radical theorists alike have largely ignored.Such theori ing, I argue, is incomplete, rather than wrong, in its assessment of modernity.#erhaps Greek tragedy can indeed help %modern manJto confront the darker side of his owne(istence and e(plore beneath the surface of his own highly rationali ed, desacrali ed,e(cessively technologi ed culture,& [ 2%] and so provide a useful corrective to the pervasive view ofhistory as unmitigated progress./his sense of the tragic is evoked in the title of the concluding chapter, a title that is not withoutits own ambiguities. It is ambiguous, because %/he /ragedy of ritical /heory& suggests at leasttwo meanings. )irst, it alludes to a heroic struggle fought and lost by the critical theorists againstthe regressive advances of enlightenment' what 9orkheimer and Adorno saw to be the irresistibledevelopment toward total social integration. /he story of critical theory, then, constitutes both atheoretical and political tragedy. 9orkheimer and Adorno came to see social freedom andenlightened thought, not as moments of a reconciled totality, but as opposite poles of anirreconcilable dialectic. +evertheless, the authors faced this pessimistic conclusion with heroicintransigence, themselves confirming that %critical thought !which does not abandon itscommitment even in the face of progress" demands support for the residues of freedom and for

tendencies toward true humanism, even if these seem powerless in regard to the main course ofhistory.& [ 2& ] Against all theoretical and political opposition, 9orkheimer and Adorno neverstopped resisting forces of integration that appeared to them to be as implacable as archaic fate.

ritical theory, however, has more than ust a tragic history to recommend it. It also has a tragicconsciousness. 9orkheimer and Adorno are thus more than tragic figures caught in a web of fatenot wholly of their own making. /hey are also playwrights of a sort, composing a drama aboutthe vicissitudes of enlightenment. /he %tragedy& of critical theory thus refers to the tragicelements and the tragic sensibility that 9orkheimer and Adorno bring to their theori ing. Dialectico Enlightenment is a modern tragedy, even though its authors were convinced that the cultureindustry made tragedy impossible. /hat it is a work of tragedy in such an anti$tragic climatemakes Dialectic untimely, and, if we are to believe +iet sche, it is precisely this untimeliness thatrecommends it. [ 2' ]

A second reason for reading Dialectic has to do with how we might come to understand theclassical and contemporary te(ts, each in the light of the other. 9orkheimer and Adorno can helpus read the works of tragedy and theory in a conte(t and with an urgency and insight we wouldotherwise lack. onversely, Greek tragedy and theory can teach us to recogni e and appreciate













the tragic components of fate, suffering, and human mutability, as well as detect the fault linesthat traverse the seemingly stable foundations of our own moderni ed and technici ed society—instabilities Dialectic e(poses. #airing a tragedy with a work of contemporary theory thusenriches our reading of the latter, while simultaneously disclosing neglected or ignored aspects ofthe former. 9ere is one way in which Dialectic establishes a dialogue between Greek tragedy !andpolitical theory read in its conte(t" and the thought of the modern enlightenment./here is one last way in which 9orkheimer and Adorno-s work promotes a dialogue between

classical and contemporary theory, and thus one more reason for writing about it. In spite of theinsistence !by 9abermas and )oucault" on modernity-s distinctiveness and the obsolescence ofpremodern concepts and categories, which seals the past off from the present, Dialectic managesto maintain these two e(tremes in uneasy and fruitful tension, much as the polis and itsinstitutions !including tragedy" maintained an uneasy tension between myth and enlightenment,heroic individualism and democratic community, romantic legend of the past and the harsh realityof the present. 9orkheimer and Adorno are able to provide a link between an irretrievable pastand an almost unlivable present that threatens to accelerate out of control. 3et their pro ect is nomore an attempt to recover the past than was tragedy-s. Dialectic o Enlightenment brings pastand present together in an uneasy unity of opposites, not to accomplish the conservation of thepast, but in order to use it all the more effectively for the sake of a better future.

-otesB. ;n the devaluation of classical political thought by the behavioral revolution, see Sheldon Wolin, %#olitical /heory as a>ocation,& American Political !cience Revie" Khereafter cited as AP!R L MD, E !5ec. BHMH". )or a dismissal of the moral andpolitical claims of the ancient polis, see <obert 5ahl, Democracy and #ts $ritics !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress,BH H", as well as Stephen /. 9olmes, %Aristippus in and out of Athens,& AP!R ND, B !1ar. BHNH"' BBD CN. )or recent socialhistory, see ;rlando #atterson, %reedom, vol. B' %reedom in the &a'ing o the (estern (orld !+ew 3ork' *asic *ooks, BHHB".A few feminist e(amples are Oate 1illett, !e)ual Politics !Garden ity, +.3.' 5oubleday, BHNB"0 Susan ;kin, (omen in (esternPolitical Thought !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHNH"0 4ean *ethke :lshtain, Public &an, Private(oman !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BH B"0 +ancy 9artsock, &oney, !e) and Po"er* To"ard a %eminist+istorical &aterialism !+ew 3ork' 7ongman, BH D", and 1ary ;-*rien, The Politics o Reproduction !*oston' <outledge P Oegan#aul, BH B". ;n the construction of Greece by German classicists, see 1artin *ernal, lac' Athena* The A roasiatic Roots o$lassical $ivili-ation, vol. B !+ew *runswick, +.4.' <utgers =niversity #ress, BH N" K*A OL

C. A few e(amples among classicists are harles Segal, 4.$#. >ernant, #ierre >idal$+a2uet, Simon Goldhill, 4ohn 4. Winkler,)roma Qeitlin, and 4osiah ;ber. See also 4ohn #eradotto, &an in the &iddle oice* /ame and /arration in theOdyssey !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR", ch. B, for an account of the influence of post$structuralism on

classical scholarship. ;n the invasion of classics by nonspecialists, see Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction o American Democracy, ed. 4. #eter :uben, 4osiah ;ber, and 4ohn Wallach !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHE",introduction. K*A O L

D. See *ernard Williams, !hame and /ecessity !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHHD"0 4. #eter :uben, The Tragedy oPolitical Theory* The Road /ot Ta'en !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR"0 1artha +ussbaum, The %ragility oGoodness* 0uc' and Ethics in Gree' 0iterature and Philosophy ! ambridge' =niversity of ambridge #ress, BH M". K*A O L

E. See )oucault-s essay %+iet sche, Genealogy, 9istory,& in The %oucault Reader, ed. #aul <abinow !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks,BH E"0 4ac2ues 5errida, %#lato-s #harmacy,& in Dissemination, trans. *arbara 4ohnson ! hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress,BH B"0 4ean$)ran6ois 7yotard and 4ean$7oup /h baud, 1ust Gaming, trans. Wlad God ich !1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota#ress, BH F"0 and 48rgen 9abermas, Theory and Practice, trans. 4ohn >iertel !*oston' *eacon #ress, BHND", and The Theory o$ommunicative Action* Reason and the Rationali-ation o !ociety, trans. /homas 1c arthy !*oston' *eacon #ress, BH E,BH N". K*A O L

F. See, e.g., 5ana >illa, %#ostmodernism and the #ublic Sphere,& AP!R M, D !Sept. BHHC"' NBC CB0 *onnie 9onig, %Arendt,Identity and 5ifference,& Political Theory BM, B !)eb. BH "' NN H 0 hantal 1ouffe, ed., Dimensions o RadicalDemocracy !+ew 3ork' >erso, BHHC", and id., %5emocratic iti enship and the #olitical ommunity,& in %eminists Theori-e thePolitical, ed. 4udith *utler and 4oan Scott, pp. DMH E !+ew 3ork' <outledge, BHHC". )or feminist criticisms of Arendt, see,e.g., #atricia Springborg, %9annah Arendt and the lassical <epublican /radition,& in Thin'ing, 1udging, %reedom, ed. G. /.Oaplan and . S. Oessler !Sydney' G. Allen P =nwin, BH H", pp. H BN0 Wendy 7. *rown, &anhood and Politics* A %eministReading in Political Theory !/otowa, +.4.' <owman P 7ittlefield, BH ". ;n the concept of agonistic feminism, see *onnie9onig, %/oward an Agonistic )eminism,& in %eminists Theori-e, pp. CBF DF. *ut see now also her recent book Political Theoryand the Displacement o Politics !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHD". :(ceptions to this are 9anna #itkin-s attempt, in

%4ustice' ;n <elating #ublic and #rivate,& Political Theory H, D !Aug. BH B"' DRD CM, to rescue Arendt, not via )oucault,+iet sche, and the politics of agonistic sub ectivity, but via an appeal to ustice and the Aristotelian category of deliberation, aswell as Ann 1. 7ane and Warren 4. 7ane-s appropriation of the Aristotelian categories of pra(is and phronesis for feministthought. See their essay %Athenian #olitical /hought and the )eminist #olitics of #oiesis and #ra(is,& in Athenian PoliticalThought and the Reconstruction o American Democracy, ed. 4. #eter :uben, 4osiah ;ber, and 4ohn Wallach, pp. CMF!Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHE". ;n the concept of %agonistic democracy,& see William

onnolly, #dentity2Di erence !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHB", (. The Phantom Public !phere, ed. *ruce <obbins!1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress, BHHD", is another postmodern attempt to theori e the %public sphere& that relies,implicitly and e(plicitly, on the classical categories of republican virtue, public and private, and the agora !the public as aphantasmagoria, or phantom agora", if mostly by way of criti2ue and in opposition. )or a modernist acknowledgement of theGreeks, see Seyla *enhabib, %1odels of #ublic Space' 9annah Arendt, the 7iberal /radition and 48rgen 9abermas,&

in +abermas and the Public !phere, ed. raig alhoun ! ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHHC", pp. ND H . Also see +ancy)raser, %<ethinking the #ublic Sphere' A ontribution to the riti2ue of Actually :(isting 5emocracy,& !ocial Te)t , H !BHHR",who tends to confuse discursive reason with theatrical space, most notably on p. FN. K*A O L

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=s1.0.1&toc.id=ch1&toc.depth=100&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=d0e256#X
















M. ;n such transformations in the power of the state and economy, see, e.g., Sheldon Wolin, %5emocracy in the 5iscourse of#ostmodernism,& !ocial Research FN, B !BHHR"' F DR, and %5emocracy and the Welfare State' /heoretical onnectionsbetween !taatsr3son and (ohl ahrtstaatsr3son, & in The Presence o the Past* Essays on the !tate and the$onstitution !*altimore' 4ohns 9opkins =niversity #ress, BH H"' BFB NH0 William onnolly, Politics and Ambiguity !1adison'=niversity of Wisconson #ress, BH N"0 Scott 7ash and 4ohn =rry, The End o Organi-ed $apitalism !1adison' =niversity ofWisconsin #ress, BH N"0 1ichel )oucault, Po"er24no"ledge* !elected #ntervie"s and Other (ritings, 5678977, ed. olinGordon !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BH R"0 48rgen 9abermas, To"ard a Rational !ociety, trans. 4eremy Shapiro !*oston'*eacon #ress, BHNR", and Theory o $ommunicative Action. ;n politics as spectacle and the general destabili ation of once$settled categories, see 4ean *audrillard, #n the !hado" o the !ilent &ajority !+ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BH D", and %/he#recession of Simulacra,& in !imulations !+ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BH D", pp. B NH, esp. pp. D, BB BC, and D, as well as=mberto :co, Travels in +yperreality* Essays !7ondon' #icador, BH M". A more concrete treatment of politics as spectacle is1ichael Warner, %/he 1ass #ublic and the 1ass Sub ect,& in The Phantom Public !phere, ed. *ruce <obbins !1inneapolis'=niversity of 1innesota #ress, BHHD". ;n the reconfiguration of political space and the increasing irrelevance of thedemocratic, territorial nation$state, see William onnolly, %/oc2ueville, /erritory and >iolence,& Theory, $ulture and !ociety BB,B !Winter BHHE"' BH EB, which fruitfully e(plores the tension between those elements adumbrated in his title. In a moreradical vein, see #aul >irilio-s The 0ost Dimension !+ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BHHB", who seems to conclude that political spaceas we know it has been irretrievably lost. )rom a postcolonial perspective, see Ar un Appadurai, %5is uncture and 5ifference inthe Global ultural :conomy,& in Phantom Public !phere, ed. <obbins, pp. CMH HF. ;n the African diaspora as challenge to:nlightenment cultural hegemony, see #aul Gilroy, The lac' Atlantic* &odernity and Double $onsciousness ! ambridge,1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BHHD" and !mall Acts* Thoughts on the Politics o lac' $ultures !7ondon' Serpent-s /ail#ress, BHHD". K*A OL

N. See )redric 4ameson, %#ostmodernism, or, /he ultural 7ogic of 7ate apitalism,& /e" 0e t Revie" BEM !4uly Aug. BH E"'FD HC, and 5ick 9ebdige, !ubculture* The &eaning o !tyle !7ondon' 1ethuen, BHNH". K*A O L

. ;n the recovery of plural, counterhegemonic, and subaltern e(periences in the construction of %the& Western %public,& recentrevisionist historiography is particularly telling' in revolutionary )rance, the masculine public sphere constituted itself through

the e(clusion of women-s publicity as republican vir tuosity0 in :ngland and Germany, %the public& represented itself as auniversal category, conveniently concealing the particular class origins of its universality0 while in the nineteenth$century=nited States, competing public spheres and counterpublics comprised of women provided a variety of alternative andcompeting routes to public life. 5uring <econstruction, a black counterpublic emerged and was partially successful in gainingaccess to official discourse and oppositional publics before it dissolved. See )raser %<ethinking the #ublic Sphere&0 4oan7andes, (omen and the Public !phere in the Age o the %rench Revolution !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH "0 Geoff:ely, %+ations, #ublics and #olitical ultures' #lacing 9abermas in the +ineteenth entury,& in +abermas and the Public!phere, ed. raig alhoun, pp. C H DDH ! ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHHC"0 1ary #. <yan, (omen in Public* et"een

anners and allots, 5:8;95::< !*altimore' 4ohns 9opkins =niversity #ress, BHHR"0 Anna 3eatman, %*eyond +atural <ight'/he onditions for =niversal iti enship,& !ocial $oncept E, C !4une BH "' D DC0 and 1ichael 5awson, %A *lack

ounterpublic? :conomic :arth2uakes, <acial Agenda!s", and *lack #olitics,& Public $ulture N !BHHE"' BHF CCD. ;n the conceptof %governing representations,& see Anne +orton, Republic o !igns* 0iberal Theory and American Popular $ulture ! hicago'=niversity of hicago #ress, BHHD". K*A O L

H. /he most recent are <ichard #eterson, Democratic Philosophy and the Politics o 4no"ledge !=niversity #ark' #ennsylvaniaState =niversity #ress, BHHM" and 5avid . 9oy and /homas 1c arthy, $ritical Theory ! ambridge, 1ass.' *lackwell, BHHE"0but see also 1ark #oster, $ritical Theory and Poststructuralism !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH H"0 onnolly, Politicsand Ambiguity= 5avid . 9oy, %)oucault' 1odern or #ostmodern?& in A ter %oucault* +umanistic 4no"ledge, Postmodern$hallenges, ed. 4onathan Arac !+ew *runswick, +.4.' <utgers =niversity #ress, BH "0 1artin 4ay, %9abermas and1odernism,& Pra)is #nternational E, B !Apr. BH E"' B BE, and the essays collected in <ichard *ernstein, ed., +abermas and&odernity !;(ford' *lackwell, BH F". K*A OL

BR. /he first of these %defenses& of modernity was given as %1odernity' An Incomplete #ro ect& upon 9abermas-s receipt of theAdorno #ri e in BH R and subse2uently published as %1odernity vs. #ostmodernity,& /e" German $riti>ue CC !Winter BH B"'D BE. *ut see also 48rgen 9abermas, %/he :ntwinement of 1yth and :nlightenment' <ereading Dialectic oEnlightenment, &/e" German $riti>ue CM !Spring Summer BH C"' BD CR, republished in The Philosophical Discourse o&odernity* T"elve 0ectures, trans. )rederick G. 7awrence ! ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH N", itself a sustained defense ofenlightened modernity. ;n the debate between )rench and German intellectuals, see #oster, $ritical Theory andPoststructuralism. K*A OL

BB. See 9abermas, %1odernity vs. #ostmodernity& and also Philosophical Discourse o &odernity, pp. DDM MN. K*A OL

BC. 1ichel )oucault, The +istory o !e)uality, trans. <obert 9urley !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHN ", B' BFH. K*A OL

BD. ;n this aspect of the argument, see 9abermas, %An Alternative Way ;ut of the #hilosophy of the Sub ect,& in PhilosophicalDiscourse o &odernity, p. DBF. *ut see also id., Theory o $ommunicative Action, vol. B, %Intermediate <eflections,& for adetailed specification of the concept of communicative reason. K*A O L

BE. ;n power as a permanent provocation, see 1ichel )oucault, %/he Sub ect and #ower,& in &ichel %oucault* eyond!tructuralism and +ermeneutics, ed. 5reyfus and <abinow ! hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BH C", p. CCB0 on agonism,see id., %+iet sche, Genealogy, 9istory,& p. F. See also id., Po"er24no"ledge, p. FC, and the essay %/ruth and #ower,& pp.BRH DD. K*A OL

BF. ;n 9abermas-s own criticisms of %totali ing& criti2ue, see Philosophical Discourse o &odernity, pp. DDM D , where heconflates Adorno, )oucault, 9eidegger, and 5errida. K*A OL

BM. ;n genealogy as a strategy meant to disrupt globali ing discourse, see )oucault, Po"er24no"ledge, pp. B D, and %+iet sche, Genealogy, 9istory,& in %oucault Reader, pp. NM BRR. K*A O L

BN. 9abermas, Philosophical Discourse o &odernity, pp. DMC MF. K*A O L

B . Although #aul )riedlTnder-s Platon !BHC DR" predates 9abermas-s concept of power$free speech, )riedlTnder-sinterpretation of Socratic dialogue is remarkably similar to 9abermas-s formulation. See #aul )riedlTnder, Plato, trans. 9ans1eyerhoff !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHF ", C' BFE NR. K*A O L

BH. :. <. 5odds e(plicitly links allicles and +iet sche in the appendi( to Gorgias*A Revised Te)t "ith #ntroduction and$ommentary !;(ford' larendon #ress, BHFH", trans. and ed. 5odds, pp. D N HB. ;n Socrates and resentment, see )riedrich+iet sche, The T"ilight o the #dols !B H", trans. <. 4. 9ollingdale !+ew 3ork' #enguin *ooks, BHMH", p. ENM, and The (ill toPo"er !BHRM", trans. Walter Oaufmann and <. 4. 9ollingdale !+ew 3ork' >intage *ooks, BHM ", p. FBH. *ut comparethe Gorgias, EFNe and EF a, where Socrates says he is interested in the truth, not in winning an argument. ;n theincommensurability of political and theoretical language games, a distinction drawn from Aristotle, see 4ean$)ran6ois





































7yotard, The Postmodern $ondition* A Report on 4no"ledge, trans. Geoff *ennington and *rian 1assumi !1inneapolis'=niversity of 1innesota #ress, BH E", p. MM, and 7yotard and /h baud, 1ust Gaming, pp. BH ED, C . K*A O L

CR. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. FB. K*A OL

CB. 1ichel )oucault, The +istory o !e)uality, vol. C' The ?se o Pleasure, trans. <obert 9urley !+ew 3ork' >intage *ooks,BH M", p. . K*A OL

CC. 4.$#. >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities in Greek /ragedy,& in &yth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, trans. 4anet 7loyd !+ew3ork' Qone *ooks, BH ", pp. DC DD. K*A O L

CD. )roma I. Qeitlin, %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society in Athenian 5rama,& in /othing To Do "ith Dionysus@ AthenianDrama in #ts !ocial $onte)t, ed. 4ohn A. Winkler and Qeitlin !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR", pp. BDRMN.K*A OL

CE. /his is an appropriate time to acknowledge my tremendous debt to those classicists who have most shaped myunderstanding of Greek tragedy and political thought. /he works of 4ean$#ierre >ernant and #ierre >idal$+a2uet, of harlesSegal, )roma Qeitlin, 1artha +ussbaum, Simon Goldhill, and 4osiah ;ber have all been formative for me. I am not a classicistmyself, and I could not have trespassed on such foreign terrain without their help. Such trespasses run the obvious risks ofany amateur who steps outside the comfortable confines of his own discipline !in my case, academic political theory", and nodoubt errors of a philological kind are scattered throughout this book. I can only hope that I minimally disappoint Gary 1ilesand 4ohn 7ynch, who patiently taught me Attic Greek during my stay at Santa ru . K*A O L

CF. 1a( 9orkheimer and /heodor W. Adorno, Dialectic o Enlightenment, trans. 4ohn umming !+ew 3ork' ontinuum *ooks,BHMH". )or specific discussions of +iet sche-s influence on 9orkheimer and Adorno, see George )riedman, The PoliticalPhilosophy o the %ran' urt !chool !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH B"0 5avid 9eld, #ntroduction to $riticalTheory !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH E"0 1artin 4ay, &ar)ism and Totality* The Adventures o a $oncept rom0u' cs to +abermas !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH E"0 +ancy S. 7ove, %:pistemology and :(change' 1ar(,+iet sche and ritical /heory,& /e" German $riti>ue EB !Spring Summer BH N"' NB HE, and &ar), /iet-sche and&odernity !+ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BH M"0 4ames 1iller, %Some Implications of +iet sche-s /hought for

1ar(ism,& Telos DN !)all BHN "' CC EB0 #eter #8t , %+iet sche and ritical /heory,& Telos FR !Winter BH B C"' BRD BE0 Gillian<ose, The &elancholy !cience* An #ntroduction to the Thought o Theodor Adorno !+ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress,BHN ". )or a negative assessment of +iet sche-s influence, see 9abermas, %:ntwinement of 1yth and :nlightenment.& All thisattention to the +iet sche connection should not obscure the affinities between Adorno and Walter *en amin, whose ?rsprungdes deutschen Trauerspiels !trans. 4ohn ;sborne as The Origin o German Tragic Drama K7ondon' +7*, BHNNL" had a profoundand lasting effect on Adorno-s work. In fact, much of Adorno-s %tragic& sensibility comes from *en amin. See Susan *uck$1orss-s The Origins o /egative Dialectics* Theodor Adorno, (alter enjamin and the %ran' urt #nstitute !+ew 3ork' )ree#ress, BHNN", still one of the best books on Adorno-s version of critical theory. )or the most recent scholarship on +iet sche-sspecific influence on Dialectic o Enlightenment, see 5ouglas Oellner-s % ritical /heory /oday' <evisiting the lassics,& Theory,$ulture and !ociety BR, C' ED MR. K*A O L

CM. 5espite its suggestive title, #aul onnerton-s The Tragedy o Enlightenment* An Essay on the %ran' urt !chool !7ondon'ambridge =niversity #ress, BH R", makes no systematic effort to connect Greek tragedy with critical theory. In %/he /heatre

of the @;ther-' Adorno, #oststructuralism and the riti2ue of Identity,& Philosophy and !ocial $riticism BN, D !BHHB"' CED MD,Samir Gandesha characteri es Adorno-s thought !including his collaborative work with 9orkheimer" as a %retrieval of thestructure of tragedy& and focuses on the category of remembered suffering. K*A OL

CN. harles #. Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society' A Structuralist #erspective,& in #nterpreting Gree' Tragedy* &yth, Poetry,

Te)t !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH M", p. CD. K*A OLC . 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic o Enlightenment, i( K*A O L

()* )or +iet sche, the point in studying the thought of the classical past was its ability to act %counter to our time andthereby..on our time and, let us hope, for the benefit of a time to come& !%;n the =ses and 5isadvantages of 9istory for 7ife&!B NE", in ?ntimely &editations, trans. <. 4. 9ollingdale K ambridge' <outledge P Oegan #aul, BH DL, p. MR". K*A O

+,*

2. #o,hoc*es Oedipus Tyrannos

The Tragedy of )n*ighten"ent

/he accompanying criti2ue of enlightenment is intended to prepare the way for a positive notion ofenlightenment which will release it from entanglement in blind domination.

What is found at the historical beginning of things is not the inviolable identity of their origins0 it is thedissension of other things. It is disparity.

/hat the tragedy of ;edipus is a tragedy of enlightenment, dramati ing the triumphs and failuresattending the heroic attempts of enlightened reason to fi( the identity of the rational,autonomous, emancipated, and fully self$constituted sub ect, is indicated by the subtitle of thischapter. As current challenges to the hegemony of Western rationality intimate, however, fifth$century Athens and the tragic theater of Sophocles are not the sole conte(ts of this fundamentalambiguity about reason, enlightened thought, progress, human mastery, and control.

ommunitarian, feminist, and especially radical postmodern critics of the %pro ect of modernity&attest to the fact that enlightened reason has lost its universal appeal at a time when it can nolonger appeal to universals. [ 1 ] /he once unshakable support grounding our understanding ofnature, other men and women, and ourselves has irreparably fractured and fallen away. /he



































meaning of enlightenment is now up for grabs0 the territory of reason, emancipation, andprogress is contested terrain.In that contest, we are given a choice between reason defined as universal and a reason that isradically contingent, between practices that transcend the time and place of their emergence andothers that bear the ineradicable marks of their earthly creation, between enlightenmentcelebrated as a process of self$knowledge and enlightenment e(posed as a strategy ofsub ugation, between completing the pro ect of modernity and disturbing all enlightenment$based

narratives of emancipation. We are asked to choose between a critical theory that aims to resolveall of the contradictions that mark modernity and a genealogical criti2ue that patiently deepensthose contradictions in its effort to e(pose the deceptions all such smoothly functioning narrativesconceal. :ither enlightenment increases our autonomy, responsibility, and liberty or the verytechnologies of truth meant to secure such achievements conceal the workings of power from usprecisely when we believe ourselves to be wholly emancipated beings. In these contendingaccounts, enlightenment betokens either the potential for liberation or else the effects of asubtle, disciplinary power.Within the terms of the present contest, critical theory and genealogical criticism share preciousfew, if any, common assumptions about the meaning and fate of enlightened modernity. #olari edby the radical opposition between 48rgen 9abermas-s aim to complete the emancipatory pro ectof the modern enlightenment and 1ichel )oucault-s determination to disrupt its normali ing,

disciplinary drift, critical theory and genealogy articulate virtually antithetical accounts of theorigin!s", aims, and effects of enlightenment. /he coordinates mapped out by critical theory andgenealogy have so far resisted any alternative routes through the enlightenment terrain theychart. *ut is it possible to envision a post$enlightenment ethos that reinscribes a !genealogical"appreciation of the ambiguities, contradictions, and mysteries of the world that enlightenment,both ancient and modern, seems ruthlessly bent on suppressing, without at the same timerelin2uishing the positive gains provided by enlightened thought? 1ight we not be able toarticulate a self and order constituted from the norm of enlightened reason while allowing the

%other& of reason !in its interior, internal, and e(ternal guises" to e(pose those arbitrary elementsthat comprise our own contingently constructed histories? /hat is, can we adopt a wholly ironicstance toward the standards of enlightened reason, a stance that combines the 2uest to fulfill theemancipatory aspirations of enlightenment with an unrelenting criti2ue meant to disturb itsnormali ing and disciplinary effects? Is it possible to pursue a criti2ue of enlightenment thatrefuses both to give up enlightened thought and to succumb to entanglement in blinddomination?Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos suggests that it is. [ 2 ] A tragedy particularly well suited fore(ploring the contours of a post$enlightenment ethos, the play both portrays and embodies allthe tensions, ambiguities, and ironies found in enlightenment itself. Although critical of thepretensions of the !then" new sophistic learning, Sophocles- tragedy nonetheless participates inthe very process of enlightenment it suspects. Oedipus Tyrannos structures its material with therational will of its doomed hero in a systematic and coherent ordering of a decidedly disorderedreality. 3et if it is true that %as a negation of the possibility of a systematic order of knowledge,tragedy itself is one of the finest e(amples of this supposedly impossible order,& [ 3 ] then OedipusTyrannos is indeed one of the finest e(amples of that kind of tragedy. /his chapter e(ploresSophocles- contribution to ust such an epistemology of disruption, a form of enlightened thinking

that !like the play itself" sustains and celebrates the aims of enlightenment even as it e(posesand opposes enlightenment-s tendency to discipline and normali e the sub ects it seeks toempower.

• • •:nlightenment, as the word itself suggests, illuminates, reveals, or makes clear. /o shed light ona sub ect or a problem implies replacing the darkness of ignorance and confusion withunderstanding and knowledge, substituting certainty for mystery, clarity for obscurity. /o beenlightened also means to make a discovery. Someone who is suddenly enlightened %sees& thetruth either about her or himself, or about the surrounding world of people and things, for thefirst time. Such e(periences of light and darkness, sight and blindness pervade Sophocles- playand plague ;edipus. )or ancient Greeks, moreover, to say one %knew& something amounted tosaying one had seen it' the classical Greek word oida, %I know,& literally means %I haveseen.& [ ] /hat is why ;edipus allies himself with #hoebus Apollo, the bringer and revealer of light,and proclaims continually throughout the play that he will %reveal all,& %bring it all to light,& andnot rest until he has discovered the murderer of 7aius and revealed the mystery of his birth.









:nlightenment also implies movement and progress' from blindness to sight, darkness to light,ignorance to knowledge. /his further indicates a movement from illusion to reality, fromappearance and seeming to essence and being. /he course of Sophocles- play thus charts a

ourney that begins with ;edipus-s ignorance concerning his parents, his home, and himself andends in an all$too$brutal clarity that reveals his %true& identity. Such forward movement alsosuggests a break, not only with the past, with old ways and patterns of thought, but with natureas well, with its limits and constraints. :nlightenment thus promises freedom or emancipation

from nature, from one-s origin, tradition, history, and fate. )or ;edipus, this means initially thathe must flee his %home& in orinth to outwit the oracle, defeat the Sphin(, that symbol ofuntamed savagery, [ ! ] and assume the throne of /hebes, not as hereditary basileus, but asautonomous tyrannos . [ $ ] +ature, custom, tradition, and destiny all appear to give way before theprogress of ;edipus-s enlightened intellect.*ut ;edipus-s intellectual progress also betrays the progress of a powerful !and tyrannical"intellect. /he great %;de to 1an& of Sophocles- Antigone, an ironic meditation on the progress ofenlightenment, aptly prefaces any discussion of Oedipus Tyrannos. /he chorus e(tols the manypowers of enlightened man' many are the wonders !and terrors" of the world, yet none morewonderful !and terrible" than man ! Polla ta deina, 'ouden anthropou deinoteron pelei ".Ingenious, intelligent, skillful self$taught, self$made, all$devising, all$resourceful, and all$powerful, the inventor of speech and thought, man finds his sovereignty in his knowledge. 9isskill overcomes all the greatest powers of the world' with the help of navigation, he traverses thestormy seas and breaks a path in the trackless wilderness0 with the art of agriculture, he weariesand subdues the earth, forcing her to yield up produce and profit0 the wild beasts he snares,tames, yokes, or overpowers, bending them to his will0 by the art of politics, he founds cities andestablishes customs, laws, and traditions peacefully to regulate a life in common. )rom deathalone he has procured no escape, although against irresistible diseases he has devised remedies.In his knowledge and in his power, man is the measure of all things !DDC FC paraphrased".9ardly does the chorus finish its praise of man than it reflects on the radically ambiguouscharacter of the human condition. 5espite man-s apparent mastery over the strange, awful, andpowerful forces of the world, however, he has been unable to master the strangest, most awful,and most powerful of them all' himself. 1an is deinos in the double sense of that word'wonderful, awesome, mighty, wondrous, clever, skillful and awful, terrible, dangerous, fearful,and savage. And he is most awful and dangerous to himself. /he tracks we break in the wildcircle back, so many endless paths to nowhere0 the city that shelters us from savagery provideslittle security against the savagery within us0 estranged and strangers, we are homelesswherever we may seek to make ourselves a home0 even in our most complete knowledge, weremain imperfect0 the world remains impenetrably obscure even to the most discerning ga e.9uman knowledge is thus profound ignorance0 our power is impotence0 our greatestachievements are also our greatest failures. We are caught, Sophocles suggests, between theelusive promises of enlightenment and the surprising reversals of tragedy./he ;de to 1an, then, is not so confident in its claims about human power as might initiallyappear. [ %] /he double meaning of deinos and the play upon other ambiguous words, as well asthe position of the ode in relation to the dramatic action, force a fundamental reorientationtoward the achievements of enlightenment. [ &] If, as the ode suggests, enlightened man proudlyproclaims his sovereignty and control, yet has difficulty controlling himself, other men and

women, and nature, then ;edipus-s own enlightenment will follow no easy road that leads fromdarkness to light, blindness to sight, slavery to mastery. A man who trusts solely to the faultyvision of eyes that deceive him, his enlightenment lies along a slow, crooked, and cruel path, onethat leads from a confident, although mistaken, knowledge to the terrible truth of his ownunparalleled ignorance. :nlightened ;edipus radiates disaster triumphant. [ ' ]

Weakest and most vulnerable precisely where he feels strongest and most capable, ;edipusembodies all the ambiguities and ironies of enlightenment itself. Sophocles- greatest play thusreflects %the ambiguity of man-s power to control his world and manage his life byintelligence,& [ 1( ] and so points to the irreconcilable dialectic between the seemingly unlimitedpotential of our enlightened reason and our inability fully to circumscribe ourselves and ourworld. [ 11 ] ;ther tragedies, most notably Aeschylus-s Oresteia, celebrate the civili ing power ofhuman intelligence, e(tol the rational mastery of nature and glorify the hard$won law of the polis,while remembering the fearful chthonic powers that undergird the precarious achievements ofcivili ation. [ 12 ] Aeschylus-s own treatment of the ;edipus story recalls the great themes ofthe Oresteia* his trilogy casts the lame hero against a vast backdrop of dynastic ambition,salvation of the city, and an inherited curse that spans several generations. 3et the reversals



















from enlightenment to ignorance, mastery to impotence, remain secondary themes in bothtrilogies' [ 13 ] it is not his own but a family curse that dooms Aeschylus-s ;edipus. Sophocles, onthe other hand, forcefully concentrates the temporal and dramatic action and purposely shifts hisattention to these latter themes. 9is Oedipus condenses a trilogy into one play, contracts theaction to a single day, and focuses all drama on the character and fate of one individual' ;edipuscommands the center of the stage. [ 1 ] Aeschylus-s ;edipus kills his father at a crossroads near ashrine of the )uries in *oeotia. Sophocles- ;edipus commits the murder at a place where the

three roads meet on his fate$defying flight away from orinth, 5elphi, and the sanctuary ofApollo, one of whose in unctions was %Onow thyself& ! gnBthi seauton " and whose oracle hadprophesied ;edipus-s horrible destiny. [ 1! ] /he central theme of Oedipus Tyrannos is thus theambiguous nature of !self$"enlightenment, an ambiguity the play e(plores in terms of fate andfreedom, civili ation and savagery, and through the metaphor of incest.Sophocles considers ;edipus-s %enlightened& relationship to his history, birth, and origins as aproblem of fate and freedom, and introduces that problem through the figure ofthe tyrannos. /he fifth$century tyrannos was the paradigm of the free individual—unbound bytradition, birth, history, or inherited limits. /he tyrant was the man who could do and be almostanything, and who, in his escape from the past, %could become a model for human rationality andtheori ing, KwithL the capacity to move beyond accepted boundaries and opinions in order toimagine what was previously unimaginable, to transform the world through the power of one-smind and speech, severed from the bonds of birth and history.& [ 1$ ] ;edipus embodies ust thatcombination of historical boundlessness and prideful human rationality that describes the tyrant.I have already mentioned how ;edipus solved the riddle of the Sphin( and assumed the throneof /hebes, not as hereditary basileus !which he in fact was", but as tyrannos. 3et ;edipus-sattempt to escape his past, parents, and origins, and so fate, preceded his arrival at /hebes. Adrunkard-s insinuation about his birth first led ;edipus to Apollo-s oracle !NNH HD", and it was theoracle-s response that he, ;edipus, would murder his father and wed his mother that set him onthe road to /hebes. /ogether with his intellectual skill, the uncertainty about his birth confers on;edipus a sense of power, optimism, and hope, as though he could, alone and unaided, masterhis fate, the way he had mastered the Sphin(. When ;edipus discovers himself to be, not a childof hance, but the accursed son of his all$too$mortal parents, 7aius and 4ocasta, we see beforeus a man with a particular history, origin, and destiny, which, no matter how hard he tries, hecannot escape, because it constitutes his very being. Watching ;edipus enlighten himself, we

cannot help but recall )oucault-s observation about modern disciplinary power' no matter howmuch in control we believe ourselves to be, forces beyond our power circumscribe our lives anddirect our destinies, even as we desperately, sometimes madly, attempt to shape the forces thatshape us. [ 1%]

We should also recall, with *ernard Ono(, that ;edipus-s title tyrannos may refer, not only to thelame hero, but to Athens as well. Sophocles- ;edipus is thus %a symbolic representation of#ericlean Athens,& an anthrBpos tyrannos who resembles the polis tyrannos and possesses thatimperial city-s self$taught, self$made, and unaided ability to sei e control of the environment,bending and forcing it to comply with its human designs. [ 1& ] In his role as tyrannos, ;edipusembodies the splendor and power of Athens' his attempt to assert dominion over nature and hisun2uenchable drive for human mastery0 his forcefulness of purpose, his impatience,decisiveness, and daring, bordering on recklessness0 his into(ication with his own

accomplishments, his liberation from the constraints of all traditional pieties0 his restlessness,innovation, and ingenuity0 his designs that are swift alike in conception and e(ecution, all recallthe %fierce creative energy, the uncompromising logic, the initiative and daring which broughtAthens to the pinnacle of worldly power.& [ 1' ] /o put matters this way suggests that the audiencewatching ;edipus also watched its own tragic power on stage.If Ono( is right about ;edipus, Athens, and the play-s concern with the political conte(t of itsperformance, then Oedipus Tyrannos is also about the Athenians- own collective self$knowledge,the limits of that knowledge, and the limits of the city-s drive for empire. /hrough the manticvision of the poet, the audience witnessed in %symbolic, riddling, and prophetic terms& the utterdisaster immanent in Athenian intellectual and political greatness. [ 2( ] :ncoded in ;edipus-s nameand role as tyrannos, then, is also the riddle of the character and fate of the Athenian citi enaudience watching the play0 for both %come to disaster through the valiant e(ercise of the very2ualities that have made them great.& [ 21 ]

/he humane and humani ing power of ;edipus-s !and Athens-s" intellect proves, in this tragicreversal, to be the obverse of a savage bestiality. All the achievements of the human intellectcentered on ;edipus %point to the ironies that attend KhisL intellectual mastery as a civili ing





















hero.& 9is powerful intellect can neither know nor master his own nature—that of a plowman whofurrows forbidden fields, a hunter who tracks and snares himself, a pilot who scuttles his craft insafe harbor, a doctor who cannot diagnose his own dreadful disease, a seer blind to thecircumstances of his name, place, and birth. 9e who finds unity beneath diversity, identity inplurality, and the universal in the particular does not see the e(cess of his own unity' that he isboth husband and son to the same woman, both father and brother to the same children—thathe himself is the e(ception to the riddle of the Sphin(, the murderer of 7aius, and cause of the

plague. [ 22 ];edipus divides and arranges the contents of the world, yet at the same time unwittinglyobliterates the most sacred of boundaries. /he forcefulness of intellect with which he crosses theboundaries that separate the particular from the general, the many from the one, parallels thetransgressions that characteri e the private and public aspects of his life. In breaking the taboosagainst patricide and incest, ;edipus destroys the boundaries that separate the civili ed city fromsavage nature, humanity from bestiality. *y killing his father and wedding his mother, ;edipusdisrupts the %natural& succession of generations. *oth inside and outside, a foreigner in his ownland, an anomalous man who touches both gods and beasts at once, powerless where he oughtto rule most securely, ;edipus embodies a tragic perspective in which men and women !and theiractions" are seen, %not as things that can be defined or described, but as problems.& /ragedypresents them %as riddles whose double meanings can never be pinned down ore(hausted.& [ 23 ] :nlightenment and ;edipus both ultimately founder on the rock of impenetrablemystery, their intellectual power no match for the ironies of human life.Sophocles directly broaches the parado(ical course of ;edipus-s enlightenment in the stagedconfrontation between ;edipus and /iresias. /iresias-s insightful blindness provides, in bothspectacle and substance, the dramatic counterpoint to ;edipus-s own blind sight. /he seer-sprophetic, riddling, and symbolic knowledge stands in direct opposition to the king-s analyticalrigor, coherent logic, strict method, and highly structured and structuring intellect. 7ike theSphin( and Apollo, /iresias neither speaks out nor conceals, but gives a sign. And ;edipus is asimpatient with the perple(ing and ambiguous signs of the prophet as he is with all the otherriddles of life. Where ;edipus demands une2uivocal answers, clear solutions, and decisive action,/iresias offers impenetrable riddles, ambiguous enigma, and is at first reluctant to speak at all,wishing he had never come before the king. ;edipus, of course, has neither ears to hear nor eyesto see what is plainly before him. :ven when the prophet speaks and reveals the unambiguoustruth, ;edipus is constitutionally incapable of receiving it. *lind, dependent on guide and staff,the prophet summoned by ;edipus is a helpless picture of the king-s own broken future. /heprophetic wisdom of /iresias stands as a rebuke to the mastering intellect of ;edipus, even as itforeshadows ;edipus-s own insightful blindness. [ 2 ]

/he scene u(taposes two kinds of knowledge, a u(taposition that recurs in the unreconcileddialectic between the play-s %message& and its dramatic %structure.& ;edipus-s fall, as the chorusin the central stasimon acknowledges, certainly vindicates the pious rebuke of the prophet. At thesame time, though, the play organi es, structures, and clarifies the world with the will of an;edipus. /he heroic impulse embodied in the form of the drama itself works to subvert thee(periences of hierophany, enigma, and perple(ity and to engender in the spectator a profoundsense of tension and ambiguity. /he play asks us both to be analytical, logical, andrigorous and to attend to the enigmatic, prophetic, and poetic. Where ;edipus-s tyranny of mind

constantly drives the world apart into polarities, which eventually collapse around him, the playitself holds both sensibilities in uneasy and unreconciled tension. Sophocles- play bothparticipates in, and is critical of, the fifth$century enlightenment, with its faith in emancipationthrough the progress of knowledge. )rom an ironic stance that resists the settled terms of thecurrent controversy over modernity and the :nlightenment, Oedipus Tyrannos both embodies thepowerful drive toward the clarity, understanding, and rational discourse that marks 9abermas-scritical theory and constitutes a cautionary tale about the deployment of enlightened discoursesthat parallels )oucault-s warnings about the insufficiencies of reason. Sophocles- play thus bothencourages us to cherish the mysterious, the enchanted, and the enigmatic as indispensableallies against the increasing disenchantment of a fully enlightened world and counsels us not toab ure what is implicit in even the most critical and painstakingly genealogical of discourses' theprofound need of enlightened men and women to structure and order the world by means ofreason and in their own image.

• • •









/hrough the metaphors of sight and blindness, Sophocles weaves the themes of enlightenmentand its reversal into the very fabric of the hero-s name, one possible meaning of which derivesfrom the Greek root oidiC!oidanB,oideB, %to swell&". oupled with pous !foot" this etymology, alltoo well known to ;edipus, refers to his pierced ankles and pronounced limp0 hence the namemeans %swell$foot.& We are thus simultaneously reminded of the outcast child he was and of thee(iled man he will soon become. In a series of ironic phrases, Sophocles focuses attention on;edipus-s feet as a clue to the knowledge of his origins' %/he Sphin( induced us to look at what

was at our feet& ! to pros posi s'opein, BDR"0 %the dread footed curse& ! deinopous, EB "0 forlornand with miserable foot ! meleos meleBi podi ch reuBn, ENH"0 %/he highfooted laws of Qeus&!hypsipodes, MM", and, finally, %prideJplunges into sheer necessity where it uses a useless foot&!ou podi chr simBi chr tai, NM". 1oreover, since dipous means %two$footed,& and Oi is anuntranslatable e(pression of grief and pain, Oidipous !;edipus" can also mean %alas, two$footed&!oiCdipous". As Ono( observes, all of these phrases point with horrible irony to the maimed footof ;edipus, which forms part of his name and is a clue to his birth. /wo ofthem, hypsipodes and deinopous, pun on the king-s name itself. [ 2! ]

Another meaning, playing on the similarity between oidiC and oida, %to have seen,& hence, %toknow,& suggests the name %know$foot,& an appropriate appellation for the man who solved theriddle about feet. [ 2$ ] Oida in one form or another occurs constantly throughout the play, and thewords %I know& are never far from ;edipus-s lips. /his meaning connects ;edipus directly to theplay-s central themes of sight and blindness, light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance.[ 2%] :arly in the play, the priest says to ;edipus, %perhaps you know K oistha pou L somethingfrom a man& ! ED". /his %perhaps you know& points to a different, more damaging sense of themeaning of oidaCpou, because pou with a circumfle( means %where,& but without it, as here, itmeans %somewhere,& %perhaps,& %I suppose.& *ut nowhere does Sophocles trade on theambiguous sense of his hero-s name with such ironic force as when the orinthian messengeretymologi es ;edipus-s name in a series of puns on %know where& ! mathoim hopou 2 Oidipou 2'atisth hopou, HCE CM", ironically pointing to the fact that ;edipus does not know who or wherehe is. [ 2& ] /he ambiguous status of ;edipus-s knowledge and place thus sounds in his very name,while the confident knowledge e(pressed by the king is rebuked by an uncertainty andindeterminability at the heart of his shifting identity. 4ust as the narrative structure of the plotand the waywardness of the action overturn ;edipus-s too$confident assertions about his abilityto %see& the truth, the fearful indeterminacy of his name similarly reverses its own claim as an

e(pression of triumphant knowledge with the recognition of ambiguity, uncertainty, and ignorancethat lies at its core.)inally, in response to a 2uery about the origin of ;edipus-s name, the messenger at line BRDsays % ou' oid = ho dous & !I don-t know0 the giverJKknowsL". [ 2' ] Oid ho dous surely echoes theking-s name in an e(change about that naming and its very sense, while the words %I don-t know0the giver knows& underline a central ambiguity in the story. *ut ou' oid ho dous also means %Idon-t know the roads& and points, not only to ;edipus-s decision to flee orinth to avoid fulfillingthe prophecy and to his encounter with 7aius at the place where three roads meet, but also to hisinability correctly to decipher the signs on the roads and thus control the direction of his traveland of his life. [ 3( ]

;edipus perhaps best reveals the parado(ical nature of enlightenment encoded in his namethrough his self$proclaimed riddle$solving ability, a boast that is not wholly without merit. We

learn in the prologue that ;edipus-s position in /hebes derives directly from his intellectual skill'he won his rule in a contest of wits. [ 31 ] Where others, most conspicuously the blind prophet/iresias, had repeatedly failed, ;edipus-s own unaided intellect overcame the death$dealingSphin( by identifying the two$, three$, and four$footed creature of the riddle as man. ;edipusfounds his political rule in /hebes on the solid ground of his superior knowledge, and as hissolution to the riddle illustrates, the power of his intellect lies in his uncanny ability to divide,order, and clarify the world. [ 32 ] 9e sees unity in diversity, identity in plurality, and e2uality indifference. ;edipus-s intellectual power is in an important sense the power of abstraction' bysimplifying, clarifying, and reducing the enigmatic elements of e(perience to their lowestcommon denominator, he sees patterns and discerns order where others see only chaos0 bypenetrating surface particularities, he reveals essential unity and perceives coherent structure,solid form, and clear shape where others see constant change, shifting forms, and shapelessness.9is powerful ga e pierces the veil of illusion to uncover the solid bedrock of truth.;edipus-s characteristic knack for abstract intellection, for seeing unity in multiplicity and e2ualityin difference, proves to be both his greatest asset and greatest liability. In this way, he introducesa dangerous e2uality into language, which affects his relations with the city, his family, and the



















gods' he will not recogni e claims to e2uality in udicial procedure, e(hibits an %unstablearithmetic of the self& [ 33 ] in effacing generational difference, and finally threatens to destroy thedifference between mortal men and the gods. In Greek, isos refers to the e2uality of politicalstatus !as in isonomia, e2uality before the law0 and is goria, e2uality of speech", as well as tothe sameness of logical identity. In the case of ;edipus, %e2uality& spans both these meanings.;edipus must be e(pelled from /hebes, not only as a man who e(ceeds the upper limits ofe2uality !a god among men", but also as a man who falls below the lower limit—

the pharma'os, or ritual scapegoat, who bears the pollutions of the city. [ 3 ] %:2ual to the gods&!DB" and %e2ual to nothing& !BB N " converge in the figure of ;edipus and mark one aspect ofhis double identity as both savior and destroyer' in saving /hebes once more, ;edipus willdestroy himself. /his doubling or e2uating of the saving with the destroying capacity occurs atlines ECF and EED in an e(change between ;edipus and /iresias. %/he evils that will make youe2ual with your children& ! e)isBsei " are here e2uated with %saving the city& ! e)esBsa ". /he close

u(taposition and coincidence of sound in the two near homophones e)isBsei and e)esBsa pointto ;edipus-s %e2uality& as incestuous polluter and savior of the city. [ 3! ]

In his violent e(change with reon, ;edipus demonstrates a fundamental denial of uridical andpolitical e2uality. ;edipus would deny reon the right of e2ual speech and e2ual hearing !ER H0FEE". reon appeals to the e2uality of power, property, and honor he shares with ;edipus !FNH,F B N", and indeed ;edipus has shown himself to be a fair and e2uitable ruler, one who is notonly generous, but who respects the rights of other citi ens. At least, he does so until hesuspects a plot, and when he does, he would not merely e(ile reon, but put him to death.;edipus relents, however, and reon-s last word is %e2ual& !MNM NN", meaning that reon himselfis e2ual to his former honor. ;edipus is found both %unknowing& and %unknown& ! agnBs isambiguous here", and so stands in an uncertain relationship to the civic e2uality or fairness ofthe good ruler. [ 3$ ]

As we saw in the scene with reon, ;edipus was the respected, much loved and admired ruler of/hebes. 9aving saved the city once from the Sphin(, ;edipus would prove himself as good,compassionate, and generous in the face of the new crisis as he was before. Granting all that thesuppliants ask, he takes upon himself the pain, burden, and sickness that each individual /hebansuffers separately. %3our several sorrows each have single scope and touch but one of you. 1yspirit groans for city and myself and you at once& !MC ME". %/here is not one of you whosedisease is e2ual to mine,& ;edipus tells the suppliants in the prologue !MR MB". And the grief;edipus bears for the city he loves, he bears in public. %Speak it to all,& he tells reon, when hiswife-s brother returns with Apollo-s command. 9is is an e(tremely open and public rule, which heshares with 4ocasta and reon. 3et this great, good, and compassionate ruler who cares for hiscity more than for himself utterly conflates and confounds his relationship to what he loves themost. 9e does not uphold the demarcations that set the city apart as a distinct space, butdissolves those boundaries that differentiate the city from his family, the public from the privatedomain, and civic from personal rule, in a threatening e2uation of sameness. In his role aspatriarch, ;edipus treats the city more like a household than a polis, and himself more as itsmaster ! despot s " than as its political leader ! ana),h gemBn,basileus ". As with the intellectualriddles he solves, ;edipus would reduce the plurality and diversity of the city to a unity,embodied first in his household and finally in himself. 9e would destroy the city so dear to him byobliterating the very differences that define and sustain it. It is as though ;edipus-s patricidal and

incestuous relationship with his literal parents, 7aius and 4ocasta, e(tended to /hebes, his other,figurative, parent. #rivate and public incest are thus of a piece in this play. [ 3%]

;edipus violates not only the uridical and political e2uality upon which the city is founded butthe differences that distinguish mortal men and women from the immortal gods as well. As itdoes the rest of the play, this conflation marks the prologue, in which ;edipus appears before theplague$stricken citi ens of /hebes as caring father, powerful ruler, and, above all, godlike savior.Although the priest carefully avoids identifying the king as a god !DR", this opening scenesystematically undercuts his public display of piety. Amid the mingled sound of hymns and smellof incense, the wreathed suppliant /hebans prostrate themselves before ;edipus as before thealtar of a god. And the king assumes his godlike role with the easy nonchalance of a man whoknows his worth and knows that others share thoughts similar to his own' the characters onstage and the chorus acknowledge ;edipus-s 2uasi$divinity and revere him accordingly. /he irony,of course, is that although the suppliant citi ens approach ;edipus as if he were a god !BM, DB",and, at the opposite e(treme, as a pharma'os, he has no right to any altars at all. [ 3& ]

;edipus emerges unsummoned from the palace as a godlike figure, consciously allying himselfwith Apollo, the bringer and revealer of light. /his alliance should also draw us up short, for















although ;edipus professes piety in associating himself with Apollo and swears that he will %doeverything the god commands& !NM", it is Apollo who connives in the king-s destruction. 3et evenas ;edipus is at first 2uick to associate himself with the god, the nearer he draws to his owntruth, the farther he removes himself from the truth of Apollo, the oracles, and the gods ingeneral. As 4ocasta and ;edipus lose faith in the oracle, the balance between ;edipus and Apollo,precarious as it was in the prologue, is altogether lost. When ;edipus thinks his fortunes are onthe rise, Apollo begins to fade0 what was once a holy alliance is now a confused and desperate

enmity, man against god. [ 3' ] With Apollo in eclipse, the oracle ab ured, and nothing certain,;edipus e(ults in the possibility that he is the child of beneficent hance, son of immortalparents, unconstrained by time, place, or birth. /his wild imagining is but pregnant prelude tocertain disaster, the supreme delusion before the most hideous revelation. )ollowing thatrevelation, ;edipus-s destruction and impending e(ile reverse the priest-s praise of his rulingpower in /hebes, while the final udgment of the chorus, that ;edipus is e2ual to nothing ! isa 'aito m den KBB NL", demolishes the suppliants- previous hope that he was e2ual to the gods! isoumenos theous ".Another instance of e2uality within difference that illustrates enlightened thought-s confusionbetween the one and the many confronts ;edipus at the beginning of the play when he hears ofthe discrepancy concerning the number of %robbers& who put an end to 7aius !BB CF". ;edipus-serror, %robber& ! ho l ist s ", after reon insists on %robbers& in the plural ! l istai ", together withthe occurrence of the word one four times in eight lines and the u(taposition of %one& and

%many& twice in four lines, underscores what seems to be an almost deliberate blindness to thedifference between unity and diversity, and so to a deliberate blindness about himself. [ ( ]

/he final instability inherent in ;edipus-s relation to e2uality is no where more evident than in histransgression of the incest taboo. As an incestuous son, ;edipus collapses the distinct andsuccessive generations of the city, which differentiate past, present, and future. /his confusion ofgenerations, sounded in the first line of the play, %; children, young brood of old admus& ! palainea ", is hideously revealed when herdsman and messenger confirm ;edipus-s identity. Ashusband to his mother and father to his brothers and sisters, ;edipus unites the opposites of

%sameness and difference, unity and multiplicity& in himself. [ 1 ] 4ust as he fails to solve the riddleof the robbers !%If he still says the same number, I am not the robber0 for one would not bee2ual to many& K ED EFL", fails to see himself as the e(ception to the Sphin(-s riddle !since;edipus has always walked with three feet, he short$circuits the usual progression from four totwo to three", he fails to see that he is two where he ought to be one, and one where he ought tobe two. ;edipus is both king and scapegoat, husband and son, brother andfather, tyrannnos and basileus. 9is ultimate failure is that he fails to discover, or rather discoverstoo late, the answer to the riddle of his own life. [ 2 ]

Sophocles also plots the reversal of enlightenment through the ambiguous status of language inits relation to truth. %+o play,& writes harles Segal, %is more about language than OedipusTyrannus J9uman communication here parallels the communication by ritual and oracle betweenman and god. ontinually breaking down, this communication either ceases prematurely becauseof fears, or knowledge that cannot be spoken or runs to e(cess because of passion and anger.Apollo-s oracles from above and the Sphin(-s riddle from below provide models for humandiscourse, but both also short circuit the significative function of language.& ;edipus, the e(pertat decoding difficult messages, cannot solve the riddle of his own name. [ 3 ] An enigma to others,

he is above all an enigma to himself. Such ambiguity, central to ;edipus-s character, fate, andlanguage !and the language of the play", differs significantly from the ambiguity that marks otherGreek tragedies. [ ] /he ambiguous use of language in Oedipus Tyrannos marks neither aconflict of values nor a duplicitous character0 rather the ambiguity of ;edipus-s speech translatesthe duality of his being. ;edipus-s language is double because he himself is double, and he isdoubly deceived by it because he is self$deceived. /hrough the words he e(changes on stage,;edipus conceals, from himself and others, who he is and what he is doing to himself and tothose around him. Instead of establishing communication and community, instead of promotingself$knowledge and wisdom, ;edipus-s speech underlines the impermeability of his mind and theopacity of his words, imposing barriers to human communication and comity. /his is not toneglect the connivance of Apollo in ;edipus-s fate. /he play unfolds simultaneously on humanand divine planes, which in the end meet. =ntil they do, all ;edipus-s utterances doublethemselves. [ ! ] ;edipus-s speech proves to be ust as elusive, enigmatic, and mysterious as theworld it, and he, purports to clarify. 9is words systematically conceal as much as they reveal0they encode as well as decode, obscure as they illuminate, and miscommunicate as they seek tocommunicate. ;edipus discovers that in leading the play from beginning to end, it is he himself

















who has been led0 seeking to be master of his speech, and so of his fate, he finds that it hasmastered him. [ $ ]

As these e(amples indicate, the play is also about the necessity of sharing clear understandings,unambiguous interpretations, and transparent meanings, about the way in which speakingstructures and constitutes a community and the irreducible need we have for collectiveinterpretations, understandings, and meanings. 3et our need for clarity, transparency, andcertainty, for a common set of stable linguistic structures, can, when pursued with ;edipus-s

character and fate, undermine the very stability we seek to preserve. Impatient with multiplemeanings, diverse voices and contradictory or incompatible points of view, ;edipus seeks toimpose his unitary voice upon all others, silencing varied and variegated possibilities. /he unityachieved he attains at the e(pense of a diversity that makes agreement and political communitypossible in the first place. *y insisting that words, and the world, have only one meaning0 byreducing the comple(ity and fle(ibility of language0 by diluting the richness and unifying theplurality within the community itself, ;edipus seeks to fool others as he has fooled himself andparado(ically threatens to destroy the city he set out to save. )or these reasons, the play is alsoabout the difficulty of achieving clarity, transparency, and certainty. )or speaking always entailsmisspeaking and engenders the tragic possibility of destroying the tenuous political andintellectual relationships that bind us together, even as we desperately seek to establishthem. Oedipus Tyrannos dramati es the temptation to transparency in speech as very real,indeed, as almost given by the inade2uacies and partialities of our understandings of ourselves,of others, and of the world. )or the characters in the play, however, there is no stable, unshifting,ultimately unshakeable ground on which to stand and from which to speak !clarity is only givento blind, e(iled members of the community".1y earlier characteri ation of ;edipus as a man who can discern pattern or order where otherssee only chaos describes only half the matter and half the man. )or one thing, it suggests that;edipus-s knack for discerning pattern, order, and structure in a seemingly incoherent world isthe achievement of an all$too$passive will and intellect. Although ;edipus does not ask for, but isgiven, power by the people of /hebes, his character ine(tricably binds together the will to truthand the will to power. ;edipus does not merely discern shape, pattern, and order in the world0nor is his intellect merely a passive receptacle for information0 it is also a %structure ofintentions& [ %] that actively and aggressively shapes, patterns and imposes order on nature,circumstance, and human action. ;edipus relies on his intellect to clarify, divide, and arrange theworld. 9e has mastered savage nature by mastering the Sphin( and will master the city and menby tracking the murderer and driving the polluter from /hebes. =nder the pressure of a newcrisis, ;edipus is confident that he can save /hebes once again. 9e has only to depend on hisintellect to track the murderer, gather evidence, make inferences, impose logical order on chaoticevents, clarify present mystery by uncovering past deeds, and reconcile conflicting reports fromreluctant witnesses. 9e is sure of what he already knows, confident of his ability to discover whathe does not, and positive that it will be what he most wants to find out.+o one wants to know more than ;edipus, and no one asks so many 2uestions or takes the 2uestso seriously. [ &] Spurred on by Apollo-s riddle, ;edipus-s un2uenchable desire for truth driveshim ineluctably toward his prophesied fate and self$destruction. ;n his way to disaster, he

%investigates, e(amines, 2uestions, infers0 he uses intelligence, mind, thought0 he knows, finds,reveals, makes clear, demonstrates0 he learns and teaches.& [ ' ] It is this overwhelming love for

the truth and his magnificent will to reveal it, no matter what the conse2uences, that sustain himthrough to the final, horrible revelation that he is an incestuous patricide. +either the obstinacyof /iresias, the traditional counsel of reon, nor the wild and desperate entreaties of 4ocastadeter ;edipus from this unwavering commitment to %bring it all to light& !BDD". 9e standssteadfast against all opposition, imagined or real, even against warnings that he will destroyhimself and the city. Such warnings and cautions only goad him on and strengthen his resolve.#oised alone on the pinnacle of impending disaster, ;edipus will know the truth, whatever thecost to his city, his house, and himself' %With such clues I could not fail to bring my birth tolight&0 %*reak out what will, I shall at least be willing to see my ancestry&0 %Such is my breeding,and I shall never prove so false to it, as not to find the secret of my birth& !BRFH, BRNM, BR F".;n the point of revelation, as ;edipus imagines himself the son of no mortal parents, but theself$made, self$taught offspring of the gods, the child of hance, the king-s intellectual ourney!and his life" comes full circle. 9aving begun his 2uest as an ally of the gods in a common searchfor a murderer and polluter, on the brink of the horrible revelation, he 2uestions the validity ofthe oracles and the e(istence of the gods themselves. ;edipus-s %enlightened& intelligencethreatens to destroy the very order and coherence that give it meaning. )ortunately, the old











herdsman enters and confirms the oracle by setting in place the last piece of the pu le that is;edipus-s life. /hat life is left shattered, but the world-s meaning is restored. 9e is indeedmurderer of his father, husband to his mother, and vile polluter of /hebes, yet the oracles provegood, chance does not completely rule human life, and the gods are not indifferent to the plightof mortals. /he 2uest that began in enlightenment and light reveals the most profound personalignorance and ends in darkness, destruction, and e(ile for the 2uester.;edipus, the man of knowledge and of action, seeks to %con2uer complete prosperity and

happiness& !BBHN H ". [ !( ] As investigator, prosecutor, udge, and e(ecutioner, he seeks to solvethe riddle of 7aius-s murder, as he thinks he has solved the riddle of his own fate by fleeing

orinth. *ut events prove otherwise. /he riddles he solves and the solutions he offers create newriddles to solve and new solutions to be sought. /he world proves elusive, slippery, hard todefine, and even harder to grasp0 the tighter he holds on, the 2uicker he loses his hold.;edipus-s 2uest for knowledge and mastery defeats itself. /he fate he would master masters him,his magnificent energy accomplishes his own ruin, his decisive action loses the character ofaction altogether. ;edipus investigates the investigator, prosecutes the prosecutor, condemns the

udge, and punishes the e(ecutioner0 he is both sub ect and ob ect, actor and sufferer, victor andvictim, seeker and thing sought, the sole author of his actions and a player performing a divinelyauthored role. [ !1 ] In a script authored ointly by the mortal hero and the immortal gods, thepower of ;edipus-s intellectual progress proves to be the progress of his own tyrannical power.

;edipus-s attempt to unravel this ambiguous and tangled web of meaning so as to discover themurderer and the identity of his parents, and finally of himself, drives the action of the play. Italso threatens to destroy the actor, the city, and the intelligible order of the world itself. /he playthus unfolds a tragic vision of the tyrant-s splendor, vigor, and inevitable defeat, a vision thatcontemplates no possibility of escape, because ;edipus-s defeat is immanent in his verygreatness. [ !2 ]

• • •In the end, ;edipus recogni es his fate, embraces it as his own, and thereby confirms the truthof the oracle for himself, the chorus, and the audience. 9owever painful the search and discovery,his suffering ultimately validates the principles of linguistic, intellectual, political, and ritual orderon which the human community rests. 9is self$blinding and e(ile mend the fractures in aruptured order where the ruler is the murderer, the savior the destroyer, the self$taught, self$made man the utterly ignorant and impotent puppet of the gods. In this reaffirmation of ritualand religious meaning, Sophocles seems critical of the fifth$century enlightenment and sophisticintellectual and political tyranny0 and in the dramati ation of ;edipus-s self$defeat, the playwrightseems to castigate as impious the #rotagorean dictum that %man is the measure of all things.&*efore an implacable, mysterious, and impenetrable fate that shapes us even as we desperatelytry to shape ourselves, human intelligence and power, for all their great achievements, ultimatelyachieve very little. [ !3 ]

*ut surely this reading does ustice to neither the comple(ity of ;edipus-s character nor that ofthe play itself. Such a chastening of the emancipatory impulse of enlightenment embodied in;edipus is too easy, too neat, and makes him all too familiar. ;edipus is himself a riddle, aparadigmatic hero who cannot be assimilated to comfortable categories. /he unity of oppositeshe embodies, %2uasi$divine power and bestial rage, strength and weakness, self$affirmation and

utter helplessness, confident knowledge and abysmal ignorance, proud rationality anduncontrolled passion,& [ ! ] makes him a human enigma that defies solution. 9e is both %themeasure of all things&—Uual to the gods—and e2ual to nothing. 9orrified as the chorus may beat ;edipus-s self$apotheosis, it does refers to him as a paradigm ! paradeigma KBBHDL", ane(ample or model for all time, and thereby celebrates the fallen hero. [ !! ] /he play remainsdisturbingly ambivalent about ;edipus-s character and fate, an ambivalence that echoes theambiguity of his paradigmatic status' he commits unspeakable crimes and suffers untold agonies,yet in the same position and with such a character, no mortal could or would do otherwise.;edipus is thus both ob ect lesson and noble e(emplar' in his tragic suffering, he has indeedreconciled himself to his fate, and in this sense, he has gained a kind of heroic stature with hiswisdom. 3et the price of that wisdom—impotent, wandering, blind e(ile—is a price no ordinarymortal could bear, and it threatens to nullify the pri e. )or these reasons, a merely %pious&Sophocles will not do, any more than will a simple assessment of the play as a %tragedy of fate,&for to read the playwright as a nostalgic conservative evades the tragedy-s all$too$evident %heroictemper.&















/his ironic assessment of the paradigmatic status of ;edipus, and so of enlightenment, findse(pression at several other levels and layers of the te(t. At the intersection of dramatic te(t andritual conte(t, by the form of the drama itself, through its structure, and in its refusal of finalnarrative closure, Oedipus Tyrannos subverts both a rationalist, progressivist and an anti$enlightenment, nostalgic appropriation. /hese subversive te(tual strategies all conspire toarticulate the enduring ironies of enlightenment embodied in a play that forcefully strives to fulfillthe emancipatory claims of enlightened reason even as it resists and otherwise disrupts the

disciplinary effects of enlightenment. It is to these levels and layers that I now turn.In ancient Greece, tragedy was not only an art form, but also a social institution, which the city,by establishing competitions in tragedies, set up alongside its political and legal institutions. Aspart of a festival in honor of the god 5ionysus, tragedy renewed and reaffirmed the ritual,institutional, and cultural order in which it participated. /he city established %in the same urbanspace and in accordance with the same institutional norms as the popular assemblies or courts, aspectacle open to all citi ens, directed, acted and udged by 2ualified representatives of thevarious tribes. In this way it turned itself into a theater. Its sub ect, in a sense, was itself and itacted itself out before its public.& [ !$ ] /horoughly rooted in the social and political order of thecity, a tragic performance such as Oedipus Tyrannos helped confirm and sustain the civic andritual conte(t that shaped it. As such, tragedy was conservative and opposed the fifth$centuryenlightenment.

A tension emerges, however, between the conservative conte(t of tragedy as ritual publicperformance and the disturbing content of the enacted drama. We have seen that as atransgressor, ;edipus is a parado(ical figure who stands at the point where contraries converge,at the intersection of simultaneously present polarities. As he pushes relentlessly forward towardthe discovery of the murderer and so the identity of the hero himself, the normally coherent andbalanced order of the play-s world breaks down. /he narration and enactment of the tragedystretch that order to its limits and suspend its intelligibility' knowledge becomes ignorance,power becomes powerlessness, and civili ation reverts to savagery. In its portrayal of a relentlesssearch, the drama moves forward with a desperation marked by the confused intermingling ofopposites' in its political, social, and ritual reversals, in its inversion of identifications that replacereassuring and familiar demarcations and differentiations, in its violent action, and in the suddenirruption of the une(pected and unforeseen into human life the play deranges the normallyrelated aspects of the human, divine, and natural order. It deliberately distorts, manipulates, andtransforms the patterns, structures, and divisions by which we live. [ !% ]

/he tragedy of ;edipus thus calls into 2uestion the most solid structures of meaning, the mostcarefully guarded boundaries, and the most piously observed limits. In depicting a social order onthe verge of dissolution, Sophocles- tragedy turned that order into a problem0 as a violentperformance, tragedy negated and radically 2uestioned the moral, political, and intellectualarrangements of the culture that made that order, and tragedy as a part of it, possible. A playsuch as Oedipus Tyrannos sub ected the established order to searching criticism. A %structureddeconstruction& of the social order, [ !& ] the play stands in critical opposition to its social and ritualconte(t, even as it reaffirms that conte(t, and Sophocles stands in an uneasy tension, both withand against, enlightenment. [ !' ]

/he playwright is thus neither merely a sophistic critic of tradition nor a naive believer intraditional pieties. 9e is critical of the e(tant cultural order from a position within tradition and in

a way that self$consciously uses the past. Sophocles- play e(presses the opposition between themyths of the archaic past and the forms of enlightened thought peculiar to the city, not only inthe tensions and ambiguities that mark the characters and their action, but in %the very form ofdrama, by the tension between the two elements that occupy the tragic stage.& [ $( ] ;n one side,there is the chorus, a body of trained citi ens that e(presses the collective achievements ofAthenian democracy. ;pposite it, there is the protagonist, a legendary hero estranged from, anda stranger to, the collectivity of citi ens. /his u(taposition of present democratic citi enship andpast heroic kingship establishes enough distance between the spectators and their immediateconte(t to allow them to reflect, not only on the meaning of the action on stage, but on themeaning of their own past and present actions. [ $1 ] /he dichotomy between the citi en chorusand the tragic hero is further complicated by another opposition, which cuts across the first,further arring e(pectations, discomfiting sensibilities, and demanding reflection. Where thedemocratic chorus chants its songs in the traditional lyric of a poetry that celebrates the heroicvirtues of the archaic world, the tragic heroes speak their lines in the language of the present, ina meter close to that of prose. [ $2 ] A hero like ;edipus, pro ected into the mythic past, wouldembody the character and perform the actions of a legendary king, while at the same time

















seeming to live and act in the present, speaking the same language and confronting the sameproblems as the city. /his unsettling u(taposition of past and present in the form of the dramareiterates the thematic oppositions in the tragedy between knowledge and ignorance, power andpowerlessness, enlightenment and myth. 9ere is one more way in which Sophocles- OedipusTyrannos turned the %enlightened& present into a problem that the mythical past could illuminatefrom within the tradition of a public festival.Sophocles sustains this %dialectic of enlightenment& in another way too. ;edipus is a paradigm,

not only for the chorus !and perhaps the audience", but for the playwright as well. /his is to saythat the play also celebrates, if not emulates, the paradigmatic status of its hero. [ $3 ] 3et if;edipus is so strange and so awful and suffers the monstrous fate he does, the attemptedcelebration and emulation are impious, if not an invitation to certain failure. *ut that is preciselywhat the play itself does. [ $ ] It both represents and emulates ;edipus as deinos* as wondrous,awesome, marvelous, powerful and terrible, fearful, destructive, and violent. Insofar as thedrama itself pursues the task of clarifying, ordering, and interpreting the perple(ities,ambiguities, and mysteries of an opa2ue world, it participates in the movement of enlightenmentthat defines ;edipus-s own intellectual and political feats, even as it warns against defeat. In thisattempt to create an ordered and meaningful whole, Oedipus Tyrannos reveals its affinities withthe hero-s 2uest for enlightenment and the emancipation it brings. )or even as ;edipus-s defeatand suffering educate the citi ens who witness it, in the tragedy wrought by Sophocles, theaudience also witness one of the finest e(amples of the shaping and ordering power of therational intellect. /his is one way in which the dramatic structure of the play reflects itssubstantive teaching about the ultimate irony of enlightenment.7astly, I want to say something about how the play resists final narrative closure and so keepsalive the tension between tragedy and enlightenment. In the final moment of the drama thatfollows the self$blinding, when we see ;edipus again, bloodied and sightless, he is groping for histwo daughters and uttering for one last time his first word of the prologue' % hildren.& /hisreunion seemingly brings ;edipus-s story to a close and the play full circle. /he image of theclosing tableau reflects, with almost mirrorlike e(actitude, the image of the play-s openingmovement. [ $! ] *ut I am not convinced that Sophocles- theatrical symmetry supplies hisspectators with the narrative closure they might want or e(pect. ;edipus does, indeed, reemergefrom the privacy of the palace into the publicity of day, but shrouded in his own darkness, not inhis previous godlike radiance. 9is impending e(ile will restore order to the blighted /hebanlandscape. We have only to wait for his departure./his departure never comes. If it did, it would in any case suggest a kind of comfortable closurethat un ustifiably reconciles the tensions and oppositions ;edipus embodies and the playdramati es. In fact, the play ends on a fragmentary note. )irst of all, ;edipus-s reunion with hisdaughters, the loved ones he had all but forgotten in his single$minded purpose, is not onlyfleeting, but tainted. *lind ;edipus %sees& them now for the first time, yet they are as polluted ashe. /hese girls will not be able to regenerate a city that has endlessly polluted beginnings.Secondly, all the previous action, including /iresias-s prophecy and ;edipus-s own decree, leadsus to e(pect that ;edipus will go into e(ile, e(iting stage, theater, and /hebes for the last time.*ut this does not happen. Instead, reon insists that ;edipus go indoors to await the word of thegod. reon acts in cautious character, but nevertheless, we want ;edipus to go. =ntil he does,the drama cannot be over. /his ending, with ;edipus brought back inside the palace, disconcerts.

;edipus, the play, and the spectators all oppose it. /he drama thus does not give us the final andsatisfying conclusion that we want, but only a certain respite from the uncertainties andvicissitudes of life lived as mortal men and women. /his refusal of closure is the final reversal ofour e(pectations in a play so full of reversals' %We are left with ;edipus-s reentry into a housethat has already seen too much.& [ $$ ]

• • •/he strategies of internal subversion outlined above constitute Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos asan instructive political and theoretical alternative to the terms of the current debate over themeaning and conse2uences of enlightenment. Sophocles- attitude toward the fifth$centuryenlightenment certainly shares 9abermas-s concern for the ideas of reason, liberty, and self$determination that characteri e the modern enlightenment. <eason distinguishes humans fromnature, dispels the archaic forces of myth and superstition that impede freedom and threatenautonomy, and, as Antigone -s ;de reminds us, provides the material needs of civili ation on ahitherto unprecedented scale. 1oreover, to the e(tent that Greek tragedy participated in this











process of rationali ation in the ways elaborated above, [ $%] Sophocles is at one with the moderndefenders of reason and enlightenment.3et Sophocles is at pains to warn such defenders of enlightenment to educate themselves aboutthe blindnesses, obscurities, and instabilities within enlightened thought itself. :nlightenmentpromises freedom from fate and from the overpowering forces of nature, yet all too often, itenslaves us to a %second& nature !in the form of economic, technical, or disciplinary necessity". Itprovides us with the knowledge and power to fashion our world and ourselves, yet reveals our

ignorance and our powerlessness. :nlightenment brings us, as it brought ;edipus, both freedomand constraint, self$conscious transparency and ignorant opacity about what it is we are doing inand to our world. /his Sophoclean warning parallels )oucault-s ironic observation that the modernenlightenment rhetoric of liberation—whether it is bound up with the pseudo$scientific discoursesof psychological, physical, or social therapies—simultaneously contains and conceals its opposite.*ut Sophocles offers us no mere cautionary tale. Insofar as the play embodies the rationalist andprogressive moments of enlightenment, it sustains 9abermas-s attempt to achieve that clarity ofcommunication and mutual understanding that signals progress toward a rational society. /o thisend, Oedipus Tyrannos makes a coherent point about incoherent speech, establishescommunication with its audience as it eventually reestablishes communication onstage, and soparticipates in the invention of a reason that is also the sub ect of sustained criticism. /helanguage of reason surely blinds us, as it blinded ;edipus, to the patterns of our repeated

mistakes, enslaves as it liberates, and dominates as it promises to empower. *ut reason alsodiscloses aspects of ourselves and of the world in which we live. <ational speech certainlyestablishes communication, but it also establishes barriers to it. /he confrontation between;edipus and /iresias stands as mute testimony to such a communicative failure. /hestreamlined, technical, and overly abstract language of communications theory achieves atransparency of description that parallels ;edipus-s own !failed" attempt at clarity. /he irony hereis that such language works to ignore, e(clude, or silence the multifaceted, varied, andheterogeneous elements of e(perience that do not fit neatly into its schema. What enlightened;edipus suppresses in the world, he suppresses in himself.Sophocles- play, like one of )oucault-s genealogies, also alerts us to the une(pected, theambiguous, and the enigmatic, and points to ways of being and modes of knowing that disruptour comfortable reliance on the enlightenment alliance of reason, science, and progress.Sophocles would thus chasten 9abermas-s commitment to enlightenment, and in a manner thatrecalls )oucault-s own caution about privileging the %progress& of human reason and intellect. /heplaywright warns us against our own intellectual and political conceits, lest we fall prey to thevarious techni2ues of truth that promise liberation even as they strip us of our liberty, and so2uestions the enlightenment assumption that we are fully conscious actors, always in control ofthe conse2uences of our speech and action.;f course, ;edipus is a hero0 he does avert the plague and save /hebes. /he %natural& order isrestored, ;edipus is reunited with himself, and the parado(es and ironies presented onstage are

%solved& by the spectators. 1oreover, the play-s aesthetic structure is itself a paradigmatice(ample of the clarifying and ordering reason it seems to re ect. 7est it seem that theSophoclean narrative of enlightenment is a continuous and constant process of loss, in conclusionI want to reemphasi e its positive—rational—achievements. *y holding the two contendingnarratives of progress and reversal in mind, as the play in fact asks us to do, Sophocles offers an

alternative to current thought on enlightened reason by reminding us !as well as 9abermas and)oucault" that we, too, are incurably full of irresolvable tensions, ambiguities, and oppositions.7ike Sophocles- king, we children of the modern enlightenment embody a unity of opposites,

%from palace to wild, city to mountain, man to beastJhighest to lowest, king to scapegoat. At thepoint of intersection stands ;edipus, whose identity consists of this intersection ofcontradictions.& [ $& ] /hose ambiguities and oppositions find consummate e(pression in a play thatre2uires us to appreciate both the analytical, logical, and rational and the enigmatic, surprising,and mysterious as irreducible elements of the human condition. Oedipus Tyrannos does not inany conventional sense resolve the contradictions, ironies, and dilemmas of enlightenment.<ather, the play-s great achievement lies in its ability to hold these conflicting impulses in aproductive tension that thinks both the seductions and dangers of enlightenment together ratherthan driving those impulses apart through acts of evasion or !dis"solution. While too muchrationally achieved !imposed?" order certainly e(acts high psychic and political costs from thoseselves who fit poorly into its confines, the clarity and certainty that enlightened thought bringsremain ust as necessary as the genealogical subversions that disturb such order, and not onlybecause the former make the latter intelligible. If there is a post$enlightenment ethos that







reinscribes an appreciation of the ambiguities, perple(ities, and contradictions of the world whilesimultaneously conserving the positive elements of enlightened thought, then Sophocles- OedipusTyrannos embodies ust such a sensibility.

• • •I want to end this chapter and prepare for the ne(t by introducing the figure of Socrates. )or, like;edipus, Socrates seeks enlightenment. /he philosopher-s desire for the truth, his commitment

to his native city, and his association with Apollo all connect him to Sophocles- ;edipus. 7ikeSophocles- hero, Socrates begins his 2uest in an attempt to solve a riddle set by Apollo' %9owcan a man who knows he is ignorant be called wise?& In his search for an answer, Socrates2uestions, cross$e(amines, and interprets men and evidence in order to bring to light the truthhidden in the oracle-s enigmatic pronouncement. In the process, Socrates becomes a spokesmanfor Apollo, the bringer and revealer of light.3et Socrates- character hardly resembles ;edipus-s' where ;edipus is a king, Socrates is aprivate citi en, and where ;edipus is a man of aggressive will, tremendous energy, and tirelessaction, Socrates possesses a character of unparalleled e2uanimity, is deliberate and deliberative,contemplative and reflective, deeming it better to think carefully rather than to act rashly. 1oreimportant, though, Socrates searches for wisdom fully aware of his mortality and is not surprisedat the limits this human knowledge imposes. ;edipus, absolutely convinced of the unlimited

capacity of his intelligence, the truth of his knowledge, and his supreme ability freely to shape hisfate, cannot imagine that he has constructed a whole life upon an utterly false assumption.Socrates- search for knowledge and his attempt to enlighten his fellow citi ens is ironicallynourished by the consciousness of his own ignorance, while ;edipus learns !tragically" thatignorance is the foundation of knowledge. [ $' ]

If this characteri ation is right, then Socrates- purposeful interrogation of the une(aminedcomponents of %normal& life in Athens indicates that a comparison between Socrates andSophocles is more appropriate. Whereas ;edipus himself is not initially conscious of his owntransgressions against the ritual, political, and linguistic norms of the city, a good case can bemade that Oedipus Tyrannos is. /he confrontation between ;edipus and /iresias, and its place inthe structure of the play, illustrates this point. It also recapitulates, with painful intensity, all of;edipus-s conflicts with an enigmatic, unforgiving world.Sophoclean wisdom, then, prefigures itself as something of a Socratic enigma. In its %structureddeconstruction& [ %( ] of the social order, and of itself as a part of that order, OedipusTyrannos anticipates the manner in which Socratic philosophy 2uestions, transforms, and affirmsthe cultural, political, and intellectual structures that make it possible. In the same way thatSophocles- drama provokes and admonishes its citi en audience to reflect on the conventions theplay dramati es on the stage and embodies in a public festival, Socrates challenges hisinterlocutors to reflect on their own contemporary practices, beliefs, and values' like Sophocleandrama, Socratic philosophy was an Athenian criti2ue and therefore refused to abandon Athens./his is to say, Socratic philosophy, like Sophoclean tragedy, is a form of immanent criti2ue. WithSophocles- theater, which participated in the very traditions it sub ected to criticism, Socraticphilosophy reorgani ed the material of the Athenian political tradition in order to rethink thepresent and guide action in the future.1ore specifically, in #lato-s Gorgias, Socrates mounts a sustained attack on the tradition ofAthenian politics and on that tradition-s most celebrated statesmen. /hat tradition was foundedon rhetoric and includes such eminent names as /hemistocles, imon, 1iltiades, and #ericles.Socrates challenges rhetoric—which he defines as the knack ! empeiria " of clever speaking—withdialectic or philosophy—which he defines as the true art of politics ! techn politi' "—andtransfers the authority of the Athenian political tradition from its greatest statesmen to himself.Socrates seeks, then, to reconstruct Athenian politics on the unshakeable ground of philosophicaltruth, caring more for the argument than for honor, more for truth than for victory, more formutuality and agreement than power and domination. 3et the perils of less$than$idealcommunication—of mishearing, misspeaking, and misunderstanding—so powerfully dramati edby Sophocles, as well as the attendant difficulties of establishing a secure ground for community!both inside and outside the dialogue", haunt Socrates in Gorgias. )or all its radical

%destructuring& of the familiar codes, Sophocles- tragic performance was ultimately hedged in andbounded by the space and confines of the tragic theater as ritual performance and public festival.=nlike tragedy, Socratic philosophical dialogue cannot rely on a secure conte(t of sharedunderstandings e(ternal to the dialogue-s %performance.& It is precisely that conte(t, at leastin Gorgias, that is in 2uestion. If Socrates cannot establish grounds for clear communication







within the dialogue, he has no recourse to stable structures outside it. Socrates performs, as itwere, without a net.Gorgias is, at least in part, about the difficulties that attend the establishment of sharedunderstandings, pro ects, and lives. Socrates- attempts to establish a level of mutuality oragreement with his interlocutors are largely unsuccessful' the necessary conditions forphilosophical dialogue go unmet. 3et as the dialogue proceeds, we begin to see how the goal ofphilosophical %truth& through the achievement of shared understanding is in part the product of a

subtle strategy of power. Vuite early in the dialogue, Socrates deploys a set of e(traphilosophicaltactics designed to control the terms of political discourse. As the dialogue progresses, it revealsthe origins of philosophical %truth& to be as closely connected to power and politics as to theunpre udiced pursuit of pure knowledge. #ower, ealousy, envy, strife—these are the weaponsthat philosophers have used to forge the truth. Similar to ;edipus-s rule in /hebes, which restednot on his intellectual achievements alone, but on an identity that was dispersed, fractured, andfissured by murder and incest, the %truth& of Gorgias might be fabricated, not discovered,philosophy thoroughly politici ed, and morality produced by power. Gorgias at least suggests asmuch' it reveals the machinations of power behind even the most !non"disingenuous search fortruth, the implication of power in all discourse, and the dependence of the rule of right—of law,morality, and ethics—on the right of rule./his final comparison between Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos and Socrates in Gorgias invites an

additional comparison between Sophocles and #lato. I want to look ahead and suggest furtherthat Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos and #lato-s Republic share important continuities of substance,aim, and structure. /his is not merely because ;edipus, the paradigmatic tragic hero, stands tothe greatest work of Greek tragedy as Socrates, the paradigmatic philosophical hero, stands tothe greatest work of classical political theory. #lato-s Republic is more comple( than such a simpleand direct analogy between the hero of the play and the chief interlocutor of the dialoguesuggests. And, as I have already indicated, Socrates- temperament, circumstances, and characterdiffer too much from that of ;edipus. +ot only the activity of Socrates, but political theory itself,is the sub ect of the Republic and supplies the missing term in the analogy./hat Socrates leads the discussion in a dialogue that, as I shall argue, does not wholly identifypolitical theory with his style of philosophy, suggests an implicit criticism of that activity. /hat thefigure of the philosopher$king unites 2uasi$divine knowledge with political rule should also remindus of ;edipus, while my characteri ation of ;edipus-s controlling intellectual purpose as a

%structure of intentions& should recall the %epic& theorist #lato and the %global& theory ofthe Republic. /his ambiguity, between the %Socratic& practice of dialogue and the product of thatpractice in the Republic !the philosopher$king", an ambiguity concerning what political theory is,or can or ought to be, suggests that its very definition is at stake in the dialogue. /wo forms ofknowledge vie for preeminence in the Republic in ways that suggest a structural affinity with thetension between intellectual !and political" mastery and the wisdom that suffering brings inSophocles- play.

-otes

B. ommunitarian thinkers who have 2uestioned the universal epistemological assumptions of the :nlightenment includeAlasdair 1acIntyre, 1ichael Wal er, harles /aylor, and 1ichael Sandel. )eminist thinkers such as arol Gilligan, arole#ateman, Susan 1oller ;kin, >irginia 9eld, Iris 1arion 3oung, +ancy )raser, 5rucilla ornell, and 4oan /ronto have allchallenged abstract conceptions of the self that result in a sub ectivity blind to the constraints of gender. /he most radicalcriticism of the :nlightenment-s universal epistemological assumptions comes, of course, from %poststructuralist& thinkers suchas 1ichel )oucault, 4ac2ues 5errida, 4ean$)ran6ois 7yotard, and 4ean *audrillard. K*A OL

C. I have used <. . 4ebb-s edition, The Oedipus Tyrannus o !ophocles ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, B HN", withits invaluable commentary. =nless otherwise noted, all translations are by 5avid Grene, from Oedipus the4ing, in !ophocles, vol. B of The $omplete Gree' Tragedies, ed. 5avid Grene and <ichmond 7attimore, Cd ed. ! hicago'=niversity of hicago #ress, BHHB". K*A O L

D. /his is part direct citation and part paraphrase of /imothy <eiss, Tragedy and Truth* !tudies in the Development o aRenaissance and /eoclassical Discourse !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH R", p. CB. K*A OL

E. See *runo Snell, The Discovery o the &ind* The Gree' Origins o European Thought, trans. /. G. <osenmeyer ! ambridge,1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BHFD", esp. %9omer-s >iew of 1an,& pp. B CC. /he association of truth and clarity is

%characteristic of all ages of enlightenment,& writes *ernard Ono( ! Oedipus at Thebes K+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity#ress, BHFNL, p. BDD". K*A OL

F. ;n the savage nature of the Sphin(, see harles Segal, %/he 1usic of the Sphin(,& in $ontemporary 0iterary+ermeneutics, ed. Stephanus Oresic !;ttawa' ;ttawa =niversity #ress, BH B", p. BFE. /he Sphin( is a chresmodos, a singer of

oracles !BCRR". *ut her song is harsh !DM", tricky !BDR", and that of a rhapsode dog !DHB", a %hook$taloned maiden singer ofriddling oracles& !BBHH BCRR". :uripides describes her song as %unmusic& ! Phoenissae RN", and in a lost play he describes theriddle as a horrible shrieking whistle. Segal cites this as evidence that the Sphin( symboli es the reverse of civili ation' %9ersong enables her to prey upon and destroy human community.& K*A OL

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=ch2&toc.id=&toc.depth=100&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=d0e1231#X
















M. ;n the theme of emancipation from tradition, the past, and one-s origins and birth, see Arlene Sa(onhouse, %/he /yranny of<eason in the World of the #olis,& AP!R C, E !5ec. BH "' BCMB NF. K*A O L

N. harles Segal, %Sophocles- #raise of 1an and the onflicts of the Antigone, & Arion D, C !Summer BHME"' EM MM0 Seth*enardete, %A <eading of Sophocles- Antigone I,& #nterpretation E, D !Spring BHNF"' BE HM0 4. /. Sheppard, The (isdom o!ophocles !7ondon' G. Allen P =nwin, BHEN", EM E 0 <. ). Goheen, The #magery o !ophocles Antigone* A !tudy o Poetic0anguage and !tructure !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHFB", pp. HN, BEB0 7as lo >ersenyi, &an s &easure* A!tudy o the Gree' #mage o &an rom +omer to !ophocles !Albany' State =niversity of +ew 3ork #ress, BHNE", pp. CRBD. K*A OL

. /he u(tapositions of resourceful ! pantoporos, DMR" and resourceless ! aporos ", and highest in the city ! hypsipolis " and

cityless ! apolis ", also point up the ambiguous meaning of deinos. K*A O LH. I paraphrase this line from 1a( 9orkheimer and /heodor W. Adorno, Dialectic o Enlightenment, trans. 4ohn umming !+ew3ork' ontinuum *ooks, BHMH", p. D, in anticipation of chapter M. K*A O L

BR. )or this 2uotation and on the theme of civili ation and savagery, see harles Segal Tragedy and $ivili-ation* An#nterpretation o !ophocles ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BH B", p. CDC, and esp. ch. . K*A O L

BB. ;n parado( in Oedipus, see W. . 9elmbold, %/he #arado( of ;edipus,& American 1ournal o Philology NC, D !BHFB"' CHDDRR. K*A OL

BC. *rian >ickers, To"ards Gree' Tragedy* Drama, &yth, !ociety !BHND0 +ew 3ork' 7ongman, BHNH", p. ECF K*A O L

BD. harles Segal, %Sophocles,& in Ancient (riters* Greece and Rome !+ew 3ork' harles Scribner-s Sons, BH C", p. BHM, notesthat of the three plays in Aeschylus-s trilogy, 0aius,Oedipus, and !even against Thebes, only the last survives, and it is fromthe !even and a few fragments that we are able to reconstruct the general outlines of the trilogy. K*A OL

BE. ;n this point, see >ersenyi, &an s &easure, p. CBE and passim. K*A OL

BF. Segal, %Sophocles,& p. BHM. See also <. #. Winnington$Ingram, !ophocles* An #nterpretation ! ambridge' ambridge=niversity #ress, BH R", p. BN , for a discussion of Apollo-s role in the enlightenment of ;edipus. K*A O L

BM. Sa(onhouse, %/yranny of <eason,& p. BCMB. /his formulation is perhaps idiosyncratic to Sophocles- play, although/hucydides does make a similar distinction between hereditary kingship ! basileia " and tyranny, the latter characteri ed by rulewhose privilege suffers no limits, hereditary, constitutional, or otherwise !/hucydides, +istory o the Peloponnesian(ar B.BD.B BN". /he word tyrannos did not originally appear in the title of the play, but was assigned to it by tradition,perhaps as early as Aristotle0 see Segal, %Sophocles.& In any case, tyrannos underwent a series of transformations from its!probably" non$Greek origins in the seventh century, and it was not until the fourth century that it ac2uired a distinctlynegative connotation0 see A. Andrewes, The Gree' Tyrants, Eth ed. !BHFM0 +ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BHMC", pp. C DR. K*A O L

BN. 1ichel )oucault, Discipline and Punish* The irth o the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan !BHNN0 +ew 3ork' >intage *ooks,BHNH", %/he arceral Archipelago.& K*A OL

B . Ono(, Oedipus at Thebes, p. BRN. K*A O L

BH. Ibid., p. BRF. K*A OL

CR. Ibid, p. HH. K*A OL

CB. Ibid, p. BRM. Allusion to the plague that struck Athens !and claimed the life of #ericles" shortly before Sophocles- play wasproduced must also be counted along with references to #ericles, Athens, and empire as evidence that Sophocles wascommenting on contemporary Athens. ;n the relation of history to Sophoclean tragedy, see, too, >ictor :hrenberg, !ophoclesand Pericles !;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHFE". K*A OL

CC. /he 2uotation and the characteri ation of ;edipus come from Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation, p. CDC. K*A OL

CD. 4ean$#ierre >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities in Greek /ragedy,& in id. and #ierre >idal$+a2uet, &yth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, trans. 4anet 7loyd !+ew 3ork' Qone *ooks, BH ", p. D . K*A OL

CE. ;n the parado( of sight and blindness in the Oedipus, see <. G. A. *u(ton, %*lindness and 7imits' Sophokles and the 7ogicof 1yth,& 1ournal o +ellenic !tudies BRR !BH R"' CC DN K*A OL

CF. I have consulted Ono(, Oedipus at Thebes, pp. B C E, on the significance of ;edipus-s foot. All translations are his,e(cept for line BDR, where I have adopted Grene-s %induced& for Ono(-s %forced& as a rendering of pros geto. K*A OL

CM. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, ed. 1. 7. :arle !+ew 3ork' American *ook o., BHRB", p. ER. K*A O L

CN. *oth Snell and 9eidegger discuss the relation between verbs of sight and verbs of knowledge' Snell, Discovery o the&ind, pp. B CC0 1artin 9eidegger, eing and Time, trans. 4ohn 1ac2uarrie and :dward <obinson !+ew 3ork' 9arper, BHMC",pp. CBE BN. K*A OL

C . ;n the puns on ;edipus-s name at lines HCE CM, see Ono(, Oedipus at Thebes, pp. B D E. K*A OL

CH. 9ere I follow Simon Goldhill, Reading Gree' Tragedy ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH M", p. CB . K*A O L

DR. ;n etymologies of and puns on ;edipus-s name, see Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation, p. CRN0 4ean$#ierre >ernant, %Ambiguity and <eversal' ;n the :nigmatic Structure of Oedipus Re), & in &yth and Tragedy, pp. BCD CE0 Goldhill, ReadingGree' Tragedy, pp. CBM B . K*A OL

DB. Although we also learn that no one has more of a right to rule than 7aius-s son. K*A OL

DC. A. 4. A. Waldock, !ophocles the Dramatist ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BHFB" suggests, on the contrary, that;edipus %does not possess, as far as we can make out, an intelligence of piercing 2uickness or very remarkable reach& !p.BEE" and thus finds it odd that ;edipus solved the riddle. K*A OL

DD. )roma I. Qeitlin, %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society in Athenian 5rama,& in Gree' Tragedy and Political Theory, ed. 4.#eter :uben !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH M", p. BBB. K*A OL

DE. f. Aristotle Politics BCFDaH' a man without a city is either a god or a beast. ;edipus seems to oscillate between these twopoles, denying the possibility of a third, mediating term. K*A OL

DF. See Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation, pp. CRH, CBD BE, for this discussion of e2uality. K*A OL

DM. Ibid., p. CBE. K*A OL

DN. Seth *enardete, %Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos, & in !ophocles* A $ollection o $ritical Essays, ed. /homas Woodward!:nglewood liffs, +.4.' #rentice$9all, BHMM", pp. BRNff., has some suggestive remarks concerning the political and family

crime. K*A OLD . Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation, p. CED. K*A O L

DH. See 5avid Seale, ision and !tagecra t in !ophocles ! hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BH C", esp. ch. . K*A OL

ER. ;n the significance of this e(change, see Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation, p. CBF. K*A OL




























































































EB. Ibid., CBE. K*A O L

EC. ;n the problems of identity in ;edipus, see also Qeitlin, %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society,& pp. BRD M, BBB BD. K*A O L

ED. Segal, %1usic of the Sphin(,& pp. BFB FC. K*A O L

EE. All tragedy rests on a double reading of 9eraclitus-s famous dictum % Fthos anthrBpou daimBn & !%9uman character isdestiny&" !9ermann 5iels, %ragmente der orso'rati'er, Griechisch und Deutsch KBHDE0 5ublin and Qurich' Weidmann, BHNCNDL, fr. BBH", <. #. Winnington$Ingram aptly remarks ! !ophocles* An #nterpretation K ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress,BH RL, p. BNN". *oth character and destiny constitute the space in which tragic action occurs. In Antigone, for e(ample, thesame word takes on multiple and contradictory meanings in the mouths of different characters. /hus, forAntigone, nomos designates the opposite of what reon means by the word. In Agamemnon, lytemnestra uses ambiguouslanguage to deceive her husband, fooling him even as she reveals her sinister purpose to the spectators. K*A OL

EF. ;n the human and divine aspects of Sophocles- drama, see 9. 5. ). Oitto, !ophocles, Dramatist and Philosopher !Westport,onn.' Greenwood #ress, BH B". K*A OL

EM. 4ean$#ierre >ernant, %Ambiguity and <eversal' ;n the :nigmatic Structure of Oedipus Re), & in &yth and Tragedy, p.BBM.K*A OL

EN. Sheldon Wolin, %#olitical /heory as a >ocation,& AP!R MD, E !5ec. BHMH"' BRN . K*A O L

E . %It is not the 2uestion that is difficult0 it is the rigidity of the 2uestioner,& says edric Whitman ! The +eroic Parado)*Essays on +omer, !ophocles and Aristophanes KIthaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH RL, p. CM". )ew 2uestioners in Greektragedy are as rigid as ;edipus. K*A OL

EH. Ono(, Oedipus at Thebes, p. BBN. ;n the medical, legal, forensic, and scientific terminology current at the time, see ibid.,pp. BRN EM. K*A OL

FR. ;n these lines, see ibid., p. BRN. K*A O L

FB. >ernant summari es tragic ambiguity this way' %*ut perhaps the essential feature that defines it is that the drama broughtto the stage unfolds both at the level of everyday e(istence, in a human, opa2ue time made up of successive and limited

present moments, and also beyond this earthly life, in a divine, omnipresent time that at every instant encompasses thetotality of events, sometimes to conceal them and sometimes to make them plain but always so that nothing escapes it or islost in oblivion& !%/ensions and Ambiguities,& pp. ED EE". K*A O L

FC. Ono(, Oedipus at Thebes, p. BRF. :. <. 5odds, %;n 1isunderstanding the Oedipus Re), & in Gree' Tragedy* &odern Essaysin $riticsm, ed. :rich Segal !+ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BH D", p. B M, argues against what he believes to be the overlyallegorical interpretations of Ono( and of :hrenberg in !ophocles and Pericles, pp. BEB ff., who contends that the character of;edipus reflects that of #ericles. Although I agree with 5odds that :hrenberg goes too far in conflating ;edipus with thehistorical #ericles, if only for the reason that their characters differ too substantially to sustain such a comparison, I amsympathetic to Ono(-s view that ;edipus and Athens share a similar character, especially if we accept the orinthians-description of the Athenians in /hucydides- +istory, bk. B. K*A O L

FD. /his is . 1. *owra-s interpretation in !ophoclean Tragedy !;(ford' larendon #ress, BHEE", p. BNF' %/he gods havecontrived an awful fate for ;edipus in order to display their power to man and to teach him a salutary lesson.& As will becomeclear below, I do not think such a reading does ustice to the ambivalence of the play. In !ophocles the Dramatist, p. BM ,Waldock, on the other hand, finds no meaning in the play, merely terrible coincidence. K*A OL

FE. harles Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society' A Structuralist #erspective,& in #nterpreting Gree' Tragedy* &yth, Poetry,Te)t !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH M", p. DN. K*A OL

FF. In The +eroic Temper* !tudies in !ophoclean Tragedy !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHME", pp. BEM EN,*ernard Ono( argues that ;edipus is the paradigmatic hero who cannot be assimilated to familiar categories, but fails torecogni e the presence of that same heroic impulse in the structure of the play itself. K*A OL

FM. >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities,& p. DD. K*A OL

FN. Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society,& pp. DM DH. K*A O L

F . Ibid., p. EN. 1y interpretation does not only differ from a poststructuralist reading by virtue of its e(trate(tuality. Where1aurice *lanchot, 0 Entretien in ini !#aris' Gallimard, BHMH", and )ranco /onelli, !ophocles Oedipus and the Tale o theTheatre !<avenna' 7ongo :ditore, BH D", for e(ample, interpret the play as a continuous process of loss—the dissolution ofmeaning into nonmeaning, of identity into nonidentity, of transparency into nontransparency—I take the view that the %te(t&not only %deconstructs& itself but pushes back and against that deconstruction. K*A OL

FH. ;n festivals and the ritual aspects of tragic performance, see A. #ickard ambridge, The Dramatic %estivals o Athens, Cded. !;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHM ". )or an opposing interpretation that discounts the importance of the ritual,religious and institutional conte(t of tragedy, see ;liver /aplin, %:motion and 1eaning in Greek /ragedy,& in Gree' Tragedy*&odern Essays in $riticism, ed. :rich Segal !+ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BH D". K*A OL

MR. >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities,& p. BR. K*A OL

MB. f. Albert ook, Enactment* Gree' Tragedy ! hicago' Swallow #ress, BHNB", pp. DE DF. K*A OL

MC. >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities,& p. DE. ;n the role of the chorus in Greek tragedy, see G. 1. Oirkwood, !ophocleanDrama !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHFN"0 <. W. *. *urton, The $horus in !ophocles Tragedies !;(ford' larendon#ress0 +ew 3ork' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BH R"0 . #. Gardiner, The !ophoclean $horus !Iowa ity' =niversity of Iowa #ress,BH N". K*A O L

MD. 4ohn 4ones, Aristotle and Gree' Tragedy !7ondon' hatto P Windus, BHMC", p. CMF, disagrees' %/he word e(emplar isinadmissible because it declares a distinct moralising intent and a way of looking at the stage figure which Sophocles- play iswithout.& /his seems to stem more from a failure to e(tend an ambiguous reading of ;edipus to the play as a whole than fromany confusion about ;edipus himself. K*A OL

ME. Winnington$Ingram recogni es this when he says that Sophocles was no prophet of sBphrosun * %All we have to do iscontemplate a world of reons and wonder whether it would be any place for a tragic poet& ! !ophocles, p. CRE". K*A O L

MF. Seale, ision and !tagecra t, ch. . K*A OL

MM. <uth Scodel, !ophocles !*oston' /wayne, BH E", p. NC. /onelli, !ophocles Oedipus, p. BMF, calls the final e(odus a non$ending. K*A OL

MN. In the ways we have seen' tragedy reshaped the archaic myths, u(taposed myth to enlightened thought, and embodiedreason in the very structure of the dramatic performance. K*A O L

M . Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society,& p. CH. K*A O L

MH. 4. #eter :uben, The Tragedy o Political Theory* The Road /ot Ta'en !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR", p.BCM.K*A OL


















































































-,* Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society,& p. EN. K*A O L

3. Li/erating 0iscourse

The Po*itics of Truth in P*ato s GorgiasAnd not only Aristotle %ut the whole of .reek antiquity thinks differently from us a%out hatred and envy/ and 0udgeswith 1esiod/ who in one !lace calls one Eris evil2namely/ the one that leads men into hostile fights of annihilation

2while !raising another Eris as good2the one that/ as 0ealousy/ hatred/ envy/ s!urs men to activity3 not to theactivity of fights of annihilation %ut to the activity of fights that are contests.

4e are su%0ected to the !roduction of truths through !ower and we cannot e5ercise !ower e5ce!t through the !roduction of truth*

According to &iogenes Laertius and the medieval manuscri!t tradition/Plato#s Gorgias %ears the su%title 6or on rhetoric7 89 !eri rhetorik9:/ a !erha!s all;too;o%vious designation/ arising out of the initial question !osed %y Socrates to .orgias< 64hatis rhetoric?7 [1] =odern critics allow the formal correctness of this designation %ut deny itsadequacy as a descri!tion of the dialogue#s sco!e or !ur!ose* This is a !reliminary questiona%out the function of rhetoric/ they argue/ not the su%0ect of the dialogue* The main themesemerge gradually in the course of the conversation< the !ro%lem of 0ustice/ the question ofwhether it is %etter to do in0ustice or suffer it/ and the value of the !hiloso!hical over the

!olitical life* The to!ic of rhetoric would seem incidental/ then/ to these more weightyissues* The su%0ect matter here is the moral %asis of !olitics2the dialogue is centrallyconcerned with how one ought to live2not the rhetor#s craft* [2]

>ut rhetoric has e5!erienced a revival of late/ and !erha!s this renewed interest hel!sreveal a dimension of the dialogue !reviously elided* or contem!orary !hiloso!hers andliterary theorists/ the rhetorical turn is not incidental to the !ressing questions of !ower andmorality/ %ut involves them directly* 'onsider =ichel oucault#s rede!loyment of theSo!hists/ @acques &errida#s engagement with Plato#s Phaedrus, @ean; ran ois Lyotard#sa!!ro!riation of the 6!agan7 !hiloso!hy of Aristotle#s Rhetoric, or @Brgen 1a%ermas#sdefense of an antirhetorical discourse ethic* or oucault/ the So!hists and rhetors revealthe will to !ower %ehind the !retensions of the !hiloso!hers* or &errida/ rhetoric !rovidesthe necessary tools to unmask the origins and !ractices of 4estern logocentrism* Lyotardrelies on the Rhetoric to de%unk claims that 6the !olitical can %e derived from thetheoretical*7 [3] 1a%ermas a!!ro!riates a tradition of civic virtue that reaches %ack to

Aristotelian deli%eration and Socratic dialogue in his formulation of a communicativeethics* 4hile I do not want to deny that Gorgias is a%out 6how one ought to live/7es!ecially since I take u! the issue of !ower and morality as a central theme in thedialogue/ my own !ur!oses are %est/ and most interestingly/ served %y !aying attention towhat has !assed as the o%vious< that Gorgias is a%out rhetoric/ and that rhetoric matters* Ithink that the dialogue acknowledges the force and im!ortance of rhetoric/ as do thesecontem!orary theorists* 4hat %etter te5t/ then/ to illuminate the !resent controversy overtruth#s relationshi! to !ower than Gorgias?In that dis!ute/ 1a%ermas and oucault offer us a choice %etween deriving normscommunicatively or im!osing them !olitically/ %etween achieving consensus coo!erativelyor vanquishing an o!!onent strategically/ %etween assenting to the 6unforced force of the

%etter argument7 or winning that argument in order to dominate the conversation andothers* 4here 1a%ermas reckons that 6reaching understanding is the inherent telos ofhuman s!eech/7 [4] oucault argues that truth is !roduced through multi!le forms of



















constraint and dismisses the !ro0ect of dissolving relations of !ower in a 6uto!ia of !erfectly trans!arent communication*7 [5] Put as a question/ the o!!osition %etween1a%ermas and oucault reads something like this< 6'an we limit the rights of !ower/ ordoes !ower im!lement the rules of right %y which we live?7>ut !erha!s this o!!osition is somewhat overdrawn* The !ros!ect of communication freefrom domination is an attractive goal 8who now wants to remain dominated?:/ %ut weought not to foreclose the !ossi%ility of a world in which not all communication istrans!arent/ in which agreement might %e achieved %y more mundane linguisticmechanisms/ such as courtesy and !oliteness 8or even lying:/ or %y such rhetorical tro!es ofs!eech as irony/ satire/ or hy!er%ole* 4hy discount the !ositive effects of am%ivalence oram%iguity in words 8even if that were !ossi%le:/ why !rivilege the !rosaic over the !oetic/the logical over the rhetorical/ the illocutionary over the !erlocutionary? [6] Cltimately/ it isthe latter terms in these !airs that make !olitics and !olitical theory !ossi%le 8even if attimes confusing/ !er!le5ing/ and frustrating:/ and certainly they enrich them* 4e surelyought to heed oucault#s warning against hy!ostasiDing a state of communication 6withouto%stacles/ without constraints/ without coercive effects/7 [7] lest we %e seduced %y the cult ofthe dialogue and %lithely fail to recogniDe when/ where/ and how !ower is at work* romthis !ers!ective/ the seductions of a romanticiDed 6ideal s!eech situation7 are 0ust asdangerous as the cynical strategies of a thoroughly hardheaded realism* et if all s!eech isnot ultimately a%out reaching rationally grounded agreement/ neither is it always the casethat 6to s!eak is to fight*7 [8]

The o!!osition sketched here/ %etween dialogue and domination/ consensus and contest/reasoned discourse and rhetorical !erformance/ seems as intracta%le as that %etween sightand %lindness/ freedom and fate/ autonomy and su%0ection e5!lored in cha!ter (* In acontest that re!lays the struggle %etween Socrates and 'allicles in Gorgias, 1a%ermas and

oucault advance a!!arently irreconcila%le arguments concerning the !ossi%ility ofli%erating truth from !ower* >ut is it !ossi%le/ in the face of these o!!ositions/ to cultivate a

!hiloso!hical ethos that is %oth !rosaic and !oetic/ theoretical and !olitical/ dialectical andrhetorical/ a sensi%ility attuned to the desire for a !hiloso!hical foundation %eyond !oliticalcontest and the drive to distur% such foundations? 'an we formulate a !ost;Platonic

!ractice that com%ines a healthy dose of genealogical sus!icion of all teleological forms oftruth with the humanist goal of securing !hiloso!hical standards of the good availa%le toeveryone? =ight we envision a 6!olitics of truth7 that sustains such standards/ yet that alsoe5!oses the !olitical character of truth and resists its !retensions to uncontesta%ility? 'anwe ado!t an agonistic ethos and ada!t it to our search for !hiloso!hical or theoreticalcertainties/ an ethos that would amount to a wholly ironic stance toward 6truth/7 itsconditions and its !ossi%ilities? Gorgias e5!lores 0ust such an agonistic ethos %y advancingas a theoretical and !olitical !aradigm something very much like the unconstrainedcommunication of an ideal s!eech situation/ even as it interrogates the very !ossi%ility ofthat ideal %y dramatiDing the rhetorical moves in the struggle/ which occur %elow oroutside the dialogue#s argument/ %etween Socrates and his interlocutors over who willcontrol the terms of !olitical discourse/ [9] %oth within and outside of the !arameters of thedialogue*That struggle is !layed out on a num%er of levels/ %oth dialectical and dramatic/ logical and

!sychological/ !hiloso!hical and !olitical/ discursive and rhetorical/ %etween severalcharacters and through a num%er of themes* To get at this layered com!le5ity/ I want toanalyDe the dialogue %y !aying attention/ not only to what the interlocutors say/ %utto how they say it* This means analyDing the dialectical !rogression of the argument as wellas the !arallel dramatic action/ attending to a method that is logical as well as

!sychological/ rhetorical as well as discursive/ e5!osing the !olitical in the !hiloso!hical*Indeed/ as I argue/ Gorgias su%tly articulates how it is that Socratic !hiloso!hy

!resu!!oses a !olitics/ or/ more !recisely/ how the search for truth is at the same time a


















struggle for !ower/ the inscri!tion of !hiloso!hical discourse on the Athenian %ody !oliticitself a !olitical act* The !olitical continually encroaches u!on the !hiloso!hicalin Gorgias, and in a way that heightens/ rather than resolves/ the contradiction %etweenthem* Philoso!hy and !olitics/ dialectic and rhetoric/ truth and !ower2these remain theessentially contested terms in the agonistic economy of Gorgias.

• • •The occasion for the dialogue is the visit of the rhetor .orgias to Athens* .orgias isreceiving visitors at the home of his host/ 'allicles/ and Socrates wishes to find out fromthe e5!ert e5actly what his craft is and what value it has* As the dialogue !rogresses/however/ this initial theme %roadens and multi!lies< the conversation %egins with .orgiasand rhetoric/ then moves to .orgias#s !u!il Polus and the question of committing orsuffering in0ustice/ and finally takes u! with 'allicles the question of how one ought tolive/ as a !hiloso!her or a !olitician* The dialogue concludes with Socrates# claiming forhimself and !hiloso!hy the true arts of !olitics and rhetoric* Thematically/ the dialoguereturns to its starting !oint/ the symmetry of Gorgias #s conclusion %rings us %ack to its

%eginning through a Socratic redefinition of rhetoric< true rhetoric is !racticed only %y

Socrates/ he is the one citiDen !racticing the art of !olitics 8 politikē technē :/ that art isidentical with !hiloso!hy/ and it aims to make Athenian citiDens %etter* This e5!ansion ofthe initial theme of rhetoric is also accom!anied %y an intensification of the discussion< asthe dialogue enlarges its sco!e/ the stakes involved in the discussion escalate accordingly*The question concerning rhetoric soon involves questions of res!onsi%ility/ 0ustice/ civiceducation/ and !olitical leadershi!* Gorgias ends with an attem!t 8and/ as we shall see/ anam%iguous one: to transfer moral and !olitical authority to !hiloso!hy and Socrates*

or all his incoherence/ .orgias is a gentleman and knows how to conduct himselfdecorously in !u%lic* 1e remains friendly to Socrates and encourages him to definerhetoric/ even when that means defining it as flattery 8FG+a%:* Indeed/ later in the dialogue/when 'allicles threatens to withdraw/ .orgias reenters the conversation as Socrates# ally

and urges the recalcitrant !olitician to continue the discussion* Polus is a different storyaltogether/ and only with him do we see the !ro%lems with the teaching of his master* The

!roduct of .orgianic education is %oorish and ill;%red* 4hat had %een a rather friendly andintellectually a%stract discussion among !olite com!any quickly turns hostile and !ersonal/

!otentially a game of domination* Polus is right/ of course/ to understand Socrates# attackon rhetoric as an attack on his chosen !rofession* or Socratic elenchus not only refutes anargument/ it also refutes the way of life on which that argument rests* The stakes in thedialogue increase again when 'allicles enters the discussion* 1ere is an o!!onent trulyworthy of Socrates* Although 'allicles !retends goodwill/ at issue in this intellectual dramais nothing less than the life of the !hiloso!her/ a situation 'allicles does not hesitate to

!oint out/ and a%out which he is correct* The focus of the struggle is multi!le< a so!histicamoralism versus 0ustice/ !olitics versus !hiloso!hy/ and Athens versus Socrates* [10 ] 1owPlato has Socrates navigate this dangerous terrain in his !ursuit of knowledge is instructivefor the way in which we view a !olitics of truth*Gorgias is constructed as a series of dialectical engagements/ in which Socrates converseswith three very different characters a%out ostensi%ly different to!ics* .orgias/ the

!rofessional orator/ is concerned with rhetoric3 Polus/ his rather clumsy !u!il/ !raises/ thendefends/ in0ustice over 0ustice3 'allicles/ the Athenian !olitician/ cham!ions the free and

!owerful life of the statesman over the slavishly weak !hiloso!her* &es!ite this diversity ofto!ics and interlocutors/ however/ one issue runs like a thread throughout the dialogue and

!rovides it with thematic unity< !ower and its relation to morality* 4hen Socrates o!ens the

dialogue %y having 'haere!hon ask .orgias/ 64ho he is/7 he wants to know a%out the !ower 8 dunamis : of rhetoric and how .orgias uses it* 4hen Polus indignantly lea!s intothe fray in defense of his master/ he identifies the rhetor with the tyrant/ %ut with one






!owerful and ha!!y/ Polus !raises a contem!orary tyrant/ Archelaus/ who had recentlyrisen to the rulershi! of =acedonia through a series of !articularly vile crimes*The would;%e tyrant Polus cannot %elieve that Socrates does not think Archelaus theha!!iest of men %y virtue of his tyrannical !ower and envy him it accordingly* 4hat isrevealed here is the measure of Polus#s own tyrannical im!ulses as he gro!es his ratherinarticulate way toward the distinction that 'allicles will make %etween nature andconvention* Socrates/ he thinks/ is tra!!ed %y a conventional morality that does not givefree reign to a man#s true im!ulses/ calling 60ust7 what the mass of men %elieve* 1e is notstrong enough to %reak out of the conventional mold/ as does Polus/ who a!!eals/ howeverinchoately/ to a law of nature under which the stronger and su!erior rule* 4hat Socratesconventionally calls 6in0ustice7 is naturally 0ust* >ut as 'allicles !oints out/ Socratesmani!ulates Polus into confusing nature and convention in his answers and so tra!s.orgias#s !u!il into an admission he does not %elieve/ that doing in0ustice is worse thansuffering it/ and further/ that not !aying the !enalty for an in0ustice one had committed isworst of all*The e5change with Polus is instructive %ecause of Polus#s reliance on the many/ the

democratic !ractice of the vote/ and his a!!eal to the e5am!le of the tyrant Archelaus*Polus associates rhetoric/ democracy/ and tyranny/ im!lying that the democratic rhetor isreally a tyrant at heart/ willing to use the intimidation of num%ers to get what he wants*Against this identification of !ower with tyranny and num%ers/ Socrates o!!oses hiselenchus* Socratic elenchus a!!eals/ not to the many/ %ut to only one/ and in that a!!ealseeks to !roduce real conviction in the listener* Its !ower de!ends on the 6unforced force ofthe %etter argument/7 not the thoughtless votes of the many* "othing could %e farther fromthe conventional conce!tion of democratic !ower 8as .orgias and Polus re!resent it: thanthis model su!!lied %y the !ractice of Socratic dialectic* And in this model/ rhetoric has no

!lace/ unless it is to !ersuade the tyrant or would;%e tyrant to !ay restitution for the evils hehas done* True rhetoric/ then/ is not in the service of a tyrant like Archelaus/ who would use

it to gain !ower over others/ %ut in the service of 0ustice/ in order to gain control overoneself and learn moderation*Socrates# conversations with .orgias and Polus reveal a fundamental antagonism %etweenAthenian !olitical !ractice and Socratic dialectic/ an antagonism that culminates in'allicles# !rediction of Socrates# death and Socrates# assum!tion of the mantle of Athenianstatesmanshi!* The rhetors and !oliticians merely flatter the demos/ gratifying the citiDenswith !leasing words/ as a cook gratifies the !alate with !leasing food/ in order to gain theirfavor and then their votes* Cnlike the true !olitician or the doctor/ the rhetor does not needto know anything/ he only needs to seem to know/ and 0ust enough to %e !ersuasive*Socratic dialectic/ on the other hand/ forces its !artici!ants to reflect on the nature and

!atterns of what they %elieve and do in order/ not to !ersuade a mo%/ %ut to choose thegood* 4hereas rhetoric is given over to dis!lays of ver%al !yrotechnics as a means ofconcealing its ignorance/ dialectic argues for the most im!ortant matters of 0ustice in asingularly mundane fashion/ which %egins with familiar e5am!les from everyday life2 shoemakers/ !astry cooks/ and doctors* After the unhealthy dis!lay of the rhetors/ Socrateswill welcome the candid s!eech 8 parrhēsia : of his ne5t interlocutor/ 'allicles*

• • •'allicles is a formida%le and worthy o!!onent* The very antithesis of Socrates/ he o!!osesrhetoric to dialectic/ !olitics to !hiloso!hy/ the naturally !owerful to the conventionally

0ust/ and Athens to Socrates as his ultimate standards of 0udgment* [15 ] et 'allicles !ossesses all the qualities Socrates admires most< knowledge/ goodwill/ and free s!eaking*

That is why Socrates refers to 'allicles as his 6touchstone7 8F -a:* If Socrates succeeds inconvincing the !olitician/ then the su%stance of his argument must %e true/ since no one#sagreement could %e counted worthier than that of 'allicles 8F -eJ:* In a !erverse sort of






way/ 'allicles turns out to %e the 6ideal7 interlocutor* If 'allicles can truly %e !ersuaded/then !hiloso!hy does have a !oint and !lace in the city and there are good reasons to

%elieve that a !hiloso!hically grounded !olitics is !ossi%le* The outcome of that contest isfar from certain/ however/ and how one 6reads7 that outcome will determine anyassessment of where Gorgias stands on the relationshi! %etween !hiloso!hy and !olitics/dialectic and rhetoric/ truth and !ower*

Socrates %egins that !ersuasion %y laying the groundwork for the mutuality and friendshi!that meaningful dialogue requires* 'allicles and Socrates %oth share the same e5!erience8 pathos : in the form of two loves< Socrates loves Alci%iades/ son of 'leinias/ and

!hiloso!hy3 'allicles loves &emos/ son of Pyrilam!es/ and the demos of Athens 8F Hd:*This !arallelism tends/ however/ to drive Socrates and 'allicles a!art rather than %ind themtogether* [16 ] Socrates 0u5ta!oses the inconstancy of Alci%iades to the constancy of

!hiloso!hy/ which he/ Socrates/ follows/ and then 0u5ta!oses himself to 'allicles/ whoflatters %oth the demos of Athens and &emos/ son of Pyrilam!es* Im!licit in these !airingsis the o!!osition %etween !olitics and !hiloso!hy/ rhetoric and dialectic/ which will emergeagain at the end of the dialogue/ when Socrates characteriDes the great Athenian statesmenas flatterers of 'alliclean stri!e* The com!arisons/ in addition to !refiguring the contoursof the dialogue in so com!act a s!ace/ underline the vast difference %etween the 6!artners7in conversation and !oint to the irreconcila%ility of the o!!onents* If Socrates cannotre!lace the love of the demos with the love of !hiloso!hy in 'allicles/ then it is unlikelythat the e5!erience they share will !rovide sufficiently fertile ground for communication* Itis against this %ackground/ the !athos of communication/ that the rest of the dialogueunfolds*'allicles is a worthy o!!onent/ %ecause he is unafraid to assert aloud what .orgiasconceals/ and what Polus has only inadequately articulated< the 0ustice of domination*Cnlike his guests/ 'allicles will not %e shamed into admitting what he does not %elievemerely to satisfy conventional morality* Indeed/ he has seen how Socrates tra!!ed the two

rhetors %y a!!ealing now to nature/ now to convention/ whenever it suited his !ur!ose inthe argument* 'allicles will successfully avoid such Socratic sleight of hand if only heholds fast to the one o%0ective standard there is< nature 8F (d2F +a:* In that way/ he canunmask Socrates# claims to truth for what they really are/ the !hiloso!her#s will to !ower/which hides %ehind the !retense of intellectual res!ecta%ility*In the great s!eech that follows/ 'allicles ela%orates a genealogy of morals worthy of8!erha!s ins!iration for: "ietDsche himself* [17 ] Socrates is advancing nothing %ut a slavemorality/ a set of conventions made %y the weak and for the weak/ when he argues for

0ustice* Such conventional lawmakers cannot defend themselves and so must define 0usticeto their own advantage and for their own !rotection* They then call themselves virtuousand 0ust for refraining from taking more than their share/ and call shameful and un0ustthose who would take more than others 8 pleonektein : 8F +c:* Thus do the weak and inferiormanufacture virtue out of their weakness and tame the naturally stronger and su!erior intosu%mitting to convention* >ut if we hold to nature 8 physis :/ we shall see how things reallystand* It is the same among men as it is among animals and cities< the strong rule wherethey can/ and the weak suffer what they must* [18 ] The law of nature 8 nomos

physēs :!rescri%es as much/ and it is only %y rules contrary to nature that the weak andslavish hold the strong and no%le in check* If only he would leave off !hiloso!hiDing andturn to more im!ortant things/ Socrates would come to his senses and understand that thisis to 6turn the whole of human life u!side down7 8F Hc:* That is not to say that !hiloso!hyhas no !lace in the education of a gentleman 8 kalos k’agathos :/ %ut when !ushed toe5tremes/ as in the case of Socrates/ the result does not %efit a free man* 1e will %eunacquainted with !olitics/ he will not %e a%le to hold his own in de%ate/ and/ what is more/if he is dragged into court %y an inferior man/ he will %e una%le to defend himself* 4hatgood is a man who cannot !rotect himself from his enemies/ a man whom one may hit with












im!unity? >etter to leave off !hiloso!hy/ 'allicles admonishes/ and tend to more im!ortantmatters* Philoso!hy !ursued in e5cess makes a man effeminate< he will %e forever hanginga%out in corners with lis!ing %oys/ shy at !u%lic gatherings where great matters are at stakeand re!utations are won* The !hiloso!hical life is the life of a slave/ hardly worthy of a freeman and an Athenian*'allicles cham!ions the master morality of the 60ust %y nature/7 although his !reliminarydefinition is none too e5act* Socrates forces him to revise that definition and eventually

!rove the !osition untena%le* 'allicles argues that the tyrant/ the man who gives his desiresfree reign and !ossesses the ca!acity to satisfy them/ is the model of no%ility* Socrateso!!oses the tyrant with the model of the !hiloso!hical man/ who strives/ not to gain morethan his share/ %ut to make his fellow citiDens more 0ust %y teaching them successfully torule themselves* 'allicles first identifies the strong with the good< rule %y the strongest is

0ustice 8F c:* As with men/ so too with cities* If it is 0ust for a strong man to rule theweak/ then a !owerful city like Athens rules weaker cities with 0ustice as well* Socratesdirects his attack against this !osition %y undermining the identification of the strong andthe good* &o the numerous weak not !rove %etter than the few stronger ones when theformer im!ose their hated conventions on the latter? And then wouldn#t equality and

0ustice %e according to nature 8 physis : and not convention 8 nomos :? 'allicles is outraged %y the !ros!ect that a ra%%le of slaves/ su!erior in strength alone/ should rule theirsu!eriors* 1e immediately withdraws the argument and redefines the good as the 6%etter78beltion :*After a short Socratic cross;e5amination/ the 6%etter7 as defined %y 'allicles turn out to %ethose men who are wise and %rave with res!ect to the affairs of the city* They ought to rule/and it is fair for them to have more than their su%0ects 8F)H%2d:* 'allicles is then %roughtu! short %y the Socratic query/ 6$ught the rulers to have more than themselves?7 1equickly denies that such a man should %e ruled at all* $n the contrary/ he should let hisdesires grow to their fullest and then !ossess the !ower to satisfy them< 6lu5ury/

intem!erance and freedom7 8 tryphē,akolasia,eleutheria : are truly virtue and ha!!iness/ andtheir !ursuit right according to nature 8F)(c:* Socrates then offers a series of e5am!lesmeant to shame 'allicles into admitting a distinction %etween good and %ad !leasures<hunger satisfied %y food/ thirst %y drink/ an itch %y a scratch* >ut what a%out the se5ualtickle of the catamite? 'allicles %ridles at this last suggestion/ and even goes so far as tou!%raid Socrates for such a shameful e5am!le/ %ut for the sake of argumentativeconsistency/ maintains his !osition 8F)Fe2F)Ja:*Socrates !ushes the inquiry and 'allicles further %y attacking the equality of good and %ad

!leasures through the same a!!eal to 6convention7 that defeated .orgias and Polus<'allicles im!licitly admits the distinction of good and %ad !leasures %ecause he acce!ts aranking of the virtues in which wisdom and courage are %etter than folly and cowardice* If/as Socrates concludes/ the weak and %ase can e5!erience more !leasure than the strong and

%rave/ then %y 'allicles# account/ the former are %etter than the latter* This is a conclusion'allicles cannot %ear/ and it forces him into the grudging admission that all along he hasthought 6some !leasures are %etter and others worse7 8F))c:* $nce 'allicles has made thisconcession to conventional morality/ Socrates will/ ste! %y ste!/ !rove his case for thesu!eriority of the life of 0ustice and tem!erance over the life of tyranny and license/ for thesu!eriority of the Socratic will to knowledge over the 'alliclean will to !ower* As he doesso/ 'allicles withdraws from the discussion* 1e first !retends ignorance 8F)-%:/ thenanswers only to gratify his guest .orgias 8J,Hc/ J,Jc:/ and finally %reaks it off altogetherwhen he suggests that Socrates either let the discussion go/ have a dialogue with someoneelse/ or ask and answer for himself 8J,Je:*The discussion so far has 0u5ta!osed two models of !ower/ the 'alliclean and the Socratic*

or 'allicles/ !olitical !ower is the !ower of domination/ the a%ility of one man or one city



to fulfill his or its unlimited desires* Political greatness means dominating de%ate in theassem%ly/ gaining fame/ honor/ wealth/ and re!utation/ or/ in the case of a city/ %eing

!owerful enough to dominate other cities/ 6leaving %ehind monuments/ whether for goodor evil*7[19 ] or Socrates/ %eing !owerful does not mean dominating other men or cities/ %utdominating and controlling ones# own desires and a!!etites/ ordering the self and city8J, a: in a 0ust and lawful manner 8J,Fd:* The %est life is the life of the !hiloso!her/

%ecause he has !ower over himself/ is not de!endent on the many as are the !oliticians/ andwill never commit in0ustice* >eing great means %eing good/ which entails forsaking honor/wealth/ and re!utation as those things are commonly conceived* .iven this conce!tion of6!ower/7 'allicles 6rightly sensed the revolution in the words of Socrates/7 [20 ] for theSocratic criticism of Athenian !olitics has turned 'allicles and his world com!letely u!sidedown*There is one more model of !ower in the dialogue/ however/ one given %y the !ractice ofdialectic itself* In that !ractice/ !ower is dis!ersed among the !artici!ants in theconversation* The !oint of dialectic is not the domination of one interlocutor over another/

%ut the mutual search for truth* &ialogue and dialectic serve no one !erson#s !articularinterest in getting or having more/ %ut rather harmoniDe a !lurality of interests in thecommon search for the good 8 to agathon : 8J,,a:* If there is com!etition/ it is for mutualenlightenment/ not !ersonal gain or aggrandiDement* Socrates reminds his !artners indialectic that he has no more knowledge than they/ and that he searches in common withthem for the truth 8J,Ga:* The dialectical model of !ower resists tyranny and closure %yinsisting on the equality of the !artici!ants and honoring the diversity and multi!licity ofview!oints that characteriDe dialogue as the collective search for wisdom*

et Gorgias culminates in Socrates# famous claim that he alone of the Athenians !racticesthe true art of !olitics 8 politikē technē J(Hd:* The great statesmen of Athens#s !ast2 Themistocles/ 'imon/ =iltiades/ and/ most im!ortant/ Pericles2did not !ractice realrhetoric/ %ut Socrates does/ %ecause through !hiloso!hy he makes the Athenians %etter

citiDens* Socrates advances a similar claim in the Apology, where he e5horts the 0ury/ as hehas e5horted his fellow citiDens all his life/ to care more for the goodness of their souls thanfor wealth/ honor/ and fame2the stuff of the conventional Athenian !olitical life that'allicles so readily !raises* >ut it is only in Gorgias that Socrates claims !hiloso!hicaldialogue as a !aradigm for !olitical deli%eration 8J(-d: and identifies !hiloso!hy as the

!ractice of the true art of !olitics*The contours of the !aradigm delineated %y Socrates in Gorgias are familiar from the earlyor a!oretic dialogues and from his defense s!eech in the Apology. Socrates goes a%out thecity testing and e5amining all whom he meets for their wisdom/ ever the ironic man/always inquiring/ searching/ and !rofessing ignorance* Philoso!hy/ in contrast to rhetoric/entails the o!en;ended search for knowledge/ wisdom/ and 0ustice/ un!retentious in itsclaims and conscious of its mortal limits* Cnlike his o!!onents/ Socrates is more interestedin following the logos of the argument wherever it may go than in winning a contest/ aswilling to %e refuted as to refute 8FJ a:* Im!licit in Socrates# transfer of !olitical authorityto himself and dialectical e5amination is the claim that if the Athenians were to follow thisSocratic !ractice in their !olitical deli%erations/ the city would now %e healthy rather than

%loated with har%ors/ docks/ and walls 8JH)a:/ and the citiDens 6good7 rather than theidlers/ cowards/ !rattlers/ and s!ongers they are now 8JHJeJ:* As !artners in a dialogueshare a mutual commitment to the argument 8 logos :/ so too would deli%erating citiDens %eunited %y a commitment to the good of the city* &e%ate in the Assem%ly would thenresem%le the dialectical search for the truth/ a search that would result in the ado!tion ofthe %est !olicy/ that decision influenced neither %y the most rhetorically !ersuasive s!eech8as o!!osed to the most logically !ersuasive: nor %y any !articular individual#s or grou!#sinterest* Inside the dialogue as well as inside the Assem%ly/ 6the unforced force of the

%etter argument7 would ideally !revail* =oreover/ the richness of the dialogical









community defined %y a !lurality of voices and a multi!licity of !ers!ectives would reflecta similar diversity in the Assem%ly/ where !lurality is the irreduci%le condition ofsuccessful moral communication and de%ate* Such is the !ractice and the !romise ofSocratic dialogue/ %oth for us and for the citiDens of Athens*

• • •>ut I am not sure that so easy an identification of !hiloso!hical dialogue with !oliticaldeli%eration is !ossi%le* or one thing/ the very !ractice of Socratic !hiloso!hy %egs thequestion of where/ when/ and how !hiloso!hy is !olitical* Cnlike the assem%ly/ council/law court/ or even tragedy/ !hiloso!hy had no !rescri%ed institutional status in Athens8although Socrates# suggestion in the Apology that he %e maintained at !u%lic e5!enseindicates that he thought it ought to:* That Socratic !hiloso!hy had no recogniDed !u%licform or forum is %ad enough/ %ut the fact that Socrates deli%erately avoided the officials!aces and !laces of !olitics only made matters worse* To claim a mono!oly on the true artof !olitics and then refuse to !artici!ate in the 6official7 discourse of the city 8or to do soincom!etently: [21 ] indicates either a wholesale re0ection of that discourse/ the failure of

!hiloso!hy as a !olitical ideal/ or the failure of Athenians to res!ond to Socratic

!hiloso!hical education* In each case/ Socratic dialogue remains marginaliDed/ !erformingits work at the interstices %etween !u%lic and !rivate/ tres!assing on %oth/ at home inneither/ %ut always standing as a re%uke to Athenian !olitical !ractice*

or these reasons/ Gorgias leaves us with an am%ivalent message/ %oth a%out the !racticeof Socratic !hiloso!hy itself and a%out its !romise for the reform of the city#s !olitics* Thisam%iguity makes it difficult for critical theory#s ideal of unconstrained s!eech readily toa%sor% or assimilate the dialectic of Gorgias. 4hile I do not dou%t that Gorgias offers

!hiloso!hical dialogue as something like an analogue for !olitical deli%eration 8whetherthat deli%eration will take !lace in the assem%ly or law courts is unclear:/ the dialoguenonetheless reveals that such a model is !ro%lematic/ for the lasting im!ressionof Gorgias is more com!le5/ more nuanced/ and certainly more am%ivalent than such an

6ideal7 reading suggests* A num%er of distur%ing am%iguities mark the course of thedialogue/ am%iguities that challenge the idealiDed image of an egalitarian s!eechcommunity in search of the truth* These am%iguities tend to disru!t and so challenge asdisingenuous the e5!licit arguments in favor of !hiloso!hy !ut forth %y Socrates* They aregenerally dramatic in character/ sometimes acknowledged %y Socrates/ %ut always revealhow the te5t su%verts its manifest content in the rhetorical sur!lus of meaning it generates*The atmos!here of Gorgias contri%utes to this im!ression in a num%er of su%tle ways*Cnlike a dialogue such as Protagoras, with its humorous and good;natured am%ience/ thefate;laden gloom of tragedy !ervades Gorgias, casting a som%er shadow on the

!roceedings* 4hereas the former dialogue !ortrays the e5aggerated vanity of the So!histsas harmlessly comic/ and Socrates as a 0ester !oking fun at such seriousness/ here themenacing tone of 'allicles [22 ] !oints to Socrates# own trial and death and the 6limits7 of

!hiloso!hy* =ore than once 'allicles reminds Socrates of the fate that awaits a man whodevotes too much of his life to !hiloso!hy< he will %e accused with im!unity/ una%le todefend himself in court 8F G%F G:*[23 ]=oreover/ unlike the two other great antiso!histicdialogues/ Protagoras and uthydemus, Plato !resents Gorgias in direct dramatic form/without the %enefit of mediation %y a narrator* [24 ] The characters confront one another/directly e5!ressing themselves and their o%0ective differences* The a%sence of narrativemediation and the dramatiDation of direct confrontation underscore the agonistic elementsof the dialogue* 1ere direct drama su%tly and effectively heightens the tension of thecontest< the form of the dialogue rearticulates its content in the agonistic clash of o!!osites/where once;decorous s!eech threatens to dro! all !retense to civility and is e5!osed asver%al com%at*The tone and te5ture of its language/ the e5am!les used/ and the images evoked suggest















another way in which Gorgias de!loys rhetorical strategies to achieve a certain !hiloso!hical effect* It is no coincidence that 'allicles o!ens the dialogue with the words6of war and %attle7 8 polemou kai machēs :/ a hint that the im!ending !hiloso!hicalconversation %etween Socrates and .orgias will %e 6the continuation of !olitics %y othermeans*7[25 ] "or is it a coincidence that Plato sets the dramatic date in such a way that/although it is im!ossi%le to fi5 with any certainty/ there is no dou%t that the war with S!arta

!rovides %oth dramatic %ackground to/ and su%stantive content of/ the dialogue* [26 ] The warof each against all/ !ortrayed %y Thucydides# accounts of the stasis at 'orcyra and the6dialogue7 at =elos/ has now moved to Athens* The re!eated assurances of mutuallyfriendly com!etition to the contrary/ the form of the agon and the tone of war underminethe !rofessed comity of intellectual e5change* As the dialogue !rogresses/ the social veneerof ur%anity wears thin* In the communicative struggle %etween 'allicles and Socrates/ wemust hear/ not the achievement of consensus2as 1a%ermas would have us %elieve2%utrather/ as oucault reminds us/ in a different/ though related/ conte5t/ 6the distant roar of

%attle*7[27 ]

inally/ Gorgias concludes with a Socratic myth full of religious imagery and sym%ols/ thefirst intimation/ @aeger argues/ that 6%ehind the infinitely su%tle dialectic distinctions inwhich his moral !rinci!les are concealed/ there is a meta!hysical transformation of thewhole of life*7 [28 ] Socrates quotes Euri!ides# 64ho knows if life here %e not really death/and death in turn %e life?7 Earlier in the dialogue/ 'allicles was right to sense therevolution in Socrates# e5change with Polus/ a revolution that would turn !olitical lifeu!side down* "ow/ at the conclusion of the dialogue/ not only the conventions of thewould;%e !olitician/ %ut the orientation of human life itself is reversed* Socrates leaves uswondering if he !refers death to life/ and if he has a%andoned Athenian !olitics altogether*&es!ite the cheery confidence of Socrates# convictions a%out the virtue of the !hiloso!hicallife/ the dialogue ends on a note of !essimistic resignation* [29 ]

The som%er atmos!here/ the reality of e5ternal and the imminent threat of internal war/ and

the reminder of Socrates# im!ending death all !rovide a conte5t for the 6failure7 ofSocratic !hiloso!hy to reform even the individual Athenian citiDen/ never mind the wholecity* That failure seems nearly com!lete< Socrates !oints out on several occasions that the

!ur!ose of de%ate is to !ersuade one#s o!!onent/ and he himself admits that if he succeedsin convincing 'allicles/ whom he deems his 6touchstone/7 he will have arrived at the truthof the matter* >ut %y the end of the dialogue/ 'allicles is not !ersuaded that the virtuouslife of the !hiloso!her is %etter than a life of pleonexia, even though Socrates hasdemonstrated the incoherence of that !osition* As in so many other dialogues in whichSocrates outargues his interlocutor/ Socrates here refutes 'allicles/ yet fails to change hisway of life* In s!ite of Socrates# re!eated efforts throughout the dialogue to esta%lish aminimum level of comity and mutuality/ the Socratic elenchus fails to encourage in'allicles that agreement or conviction 8 homologia : necessary to esta%lish and maintain thes!eech community* 'allicles/ like Polus %efore him/ slowly withdraws from any 6honest7engagement with Socrates* As a consequence/ Socrates fails to meet the standards ofdialogical success he himself has set*'losely related to this failure of !hiloso!hy is the failure of the dialogue form itself*Socrates re!eatedly 0u5ta!oses dialectic to rhetoric and insists on conducting theconversation in the form of question and answer as a way of ensuring a kind ofcommunicative equality< no one s!eaker will %e !ermitted to dominate the discussion* >utunder the relentless questioning of Socrates/ first Polus and then 'allicles retreats from thedialogue* 'allicles# answers %ecome increasingly !erfunctory/ and he admits that the onlyreason he su%mits to what he considers Socrates# im!ertinent questioning is to !lease hisguest .orgias and maintain some sem%lance of decorum in !u%lic* At the conclusionof Gorgias, 'allicles finally refuses to answer< dialogue %ecomes monologue/ and Socratesis left/ not for the first time/ talking to himself* The only voice we now hear is the voice of


















Socrates* The irony is that Socrates himself has %rought a%out what he 8said he: mostfeared< that .orgias 8or someone trained like him: would dominate the conversation/silencing other views and other voices* &es!ite Socrates# %est efforts 8or !erha!s %ecauseof them: to save a!!earances/ as the once actively engaged !artici!ants in the discussionwithdraw from the community of the dialogue into !rivate silence/ dialogic give;and;takesuccum%s to the centri!etal forces of Socratic oration*

To the e5tent that Socrates !roclaims himself to %e the only Athenian !racticing the true artof !olitics/ and so claims !hiloso!hical dialogue as a !aradigm for !olitical deli%eration/the failure inside the dialogue also indicates its failure outside* &es!ite Socrates# claims on

%ehalf of !hiloso!hy/ it is unlikely that it can successfully guide the !olitics of the city/either as a model for s!eech in the assem%ly or as a force for individual moral reformoutside it* If Socrates cannot convince 'allicles in !rivate conversation/ how will he 8oranyone else: %e a%le to convince the Assem%ly in !u%lic deli%eration? And does not theconcluding Socratic monologue sim!ly imitate the rhetorical dis!lay 8 epideixis : thatSocrates deems ina!!ro!riate in %oth !rivate !hiloso!hical conversation and !u%licdeli%eration? 1ow can !hiloso!hy guide !olitical deli%eration in any meaningful sense?Indeed/ if Alci%iades re!resents another e5am!le of the limits of Socratic !hiloso!hicaleducation/ then !erha!s it is %est that !hiloso!hy stay out of the Assem%ly and away from

!olitics* This !ur!oseful mention of Alci%iades alerts us to what Socrates su!!resses in hisaccount of statesmanshi!* $ne might then ask the same question of Socrates that Socratesasks of Pericles< has !hiloso!hy made any citiDens %etter? If the !resence of Polus givesthe lie to the success of .orgias#s education in rhetoric/ the career of Alci%iades likewiseraises a dou%t concerning the dialectical education !racticed %y Socrates* If Alci%iades isthe !roduct of Socratic education/ then Socrates is indeed corru!ting the Athenian youth*[30 ] These am%iguities in the Gorgias suggest that !erha!s Plato %elieves there is less toSocrates# %oast a%out statesmanshi! than meets the eye* Such failures 8with 'allicles andAlci%iades: certainly indicate that Socratic dialogue is not !ossi%le 6anywhere and at any

time7 and that it !rovides no un!ro%lematic !aradigm for !olitical deli%eration*E5ce!t for the Republic, !erha!s/ Gorgias is the dialogue most aware of its ena%lingconte5t/ most conscious of its own !reconditions* It is a dialogue a%out dialogue/ containss!eeches a%out s!eech/ and frequently !auses to reflect on the grounds of its own

!ossi%ility* It is a dialogue that takes itself as its theme/ a metadialogue* The su%0ectof Gorgias is the relationshi! %etween !ower and morality* >ut %elow or alongside thearguments a%out the value of rhetoric/ the worth of 0ustice or in0ustice/ and the question ofhow one ought to live/ Gorgias !ortrays a struggle over who will set the terms of !oliticaldiscourse and so control %oth the dialogue and what counts as 6moral7 in it* In oucault#sterms/ it dramatiDes how !ower im!lements the rules of right %y which we live* If we !ayattention to this su%te5t/ we see a struggle over what the interlocutors will talk a%outand howthey will talk a%out it* And/ as I ho!e to make clear/ Socrates sets the terms ofdiscourse in such a way that he violates them in the act of esta%lishing them* >yarticulating this !arado5/ Gorgias indicates that no morality is free of !ower/ no theory notim!licated in !olitical struggle/ no logic without its rhetorical effects/ no s!eech situationso ideal that it can esca!e the violence of its own founding* If !hiloso!hy is to re!lacerhetoric as the foundation of !olitics/ as Socrates seems to teach/ can it do so only %ye5tra!hiloso!hical means?The answer to that question requires a further e5!loration of the dialogue#s highly refle5ivede!loyment of rhetorical effects* ecent critics have noticed the im!ortance of dramaticstructure in Gorgias, in !articular how the com!le5 nature of the elenchus 6is reflectedartistically in the inter!lay %etween the !ersonal and the dialectical/ %etween the dramaticand the logical structure of the refutation*7 Every dialectical encounter with Socrates turnsinto a critical e5amination of the interlocutor#s own life* [31 ] In Gorgias, Socrates relies asmuch on !ersonal as on dialectical argument/ as much on shame as on logic* As Socrates









moves closer to the conclusion of a refutation/ the !ersonal %ecomes the dialectical*Socrates# method then %ecomes an attem!t less to argue 'allicles into acce!ting his

!ro!osition than to maneuver him into acknowledging that he has really %elieved it allalong* Socrates# wea!on in this !sychological warfare is shame* [32 ] This e5change issignificant for two reasons* $n the one hand/ it demonstrates the de!endence of therhetorician u!on the dēmos. If the conventional morality of the city requires a conventional

%elief/ then the rhetor or !olitician who/ like 'allicles/ really holds unconventional 8i*e*/natural: %eliefs a%out 0ustice/ cannot divulge them safely in !u%lic* $n the other/ it showsSocrates doing e5actly what 'allicles# charged< a!!ealing to either nature or conventionwhen the occasion 8and argument: suits him/ and a!!ealing to !u%lic o!inion to intimidatean o!!onent* ead this way/ can we understand Socrates# claim2that in the !ursuit of truthhe is 0ust as willing to %e refuted as to refute2without irony? $r is truth fa%ricated

!iecemeal and out of alien forms %y the hatred/ !assion/ envy/ and the will to !ower of !hiloso!hers/ who are not averse to de!loying a variety of strategies/ including that ofshame/ to maneuver their o!!onents into defeat?Socrates reveals those strategies at the dialogue#s outset* 1e insists on conducting theconversation in the form of question and answer* Socrates is not interested in witnessing arhetorical dis!lay/ %ut in engaging his interlocutor in a frank discussion* .orgias agrees tothis Socratic condition/ %oasting that he is ca!a%le of short answers as well as longs!eeches 8FF)c:* Polus is a different matter* 1e does not so readily su%mit to the Socraticcondition when Socrates asks him to restrain his long s!eeches* >ut Polus is either a slowstudy or else he willfully and su%tly evades the condition< he either cannot or will not learnthe elenchus* Socrates# ironic res!onse is to !rovide a dis!lay himself/ at the end of whichhe !oints out the violation of his own !rohi%ition/ one sus!ects %oth for Polus#s edificationand ours* Socrates 8or Plato: is !laying with Polus* At the same time/ Socrates dro!s thereader a clue< the dialogue too transgresses Socrates# !rohi%ition against rhetoric*Socrates continues to set the terms of the dialogue2how the discussion will %e conducted

2%y threatening a walkout* If Polus refuses to restrain the !roli5ity of his s!eech/ thenwhat choice does Socrates have %ut to leave? 1ere again/ Socrates sets the terms in whichthe discussion will %e conducted/ %ut those terms are themselves %eyond contestation* Andhe does so %y a!!ealing to the crowd/ who wish the conversation to continue* Polus wouldlike to resist/ %ut finds himself in a %ind< if he refuses to grant Socrates# conditions/ heshows %ad form3 if he grants them/ we all know he is no match for the master dialectician*4e also feel that Socrates knows this and so engineers the dilemma in order to gain theu!!er hand* At this !oint in the dialogue/ once Socrates has maneuvered his o!!onents ontodialectical territory/ he can sur!rise and am%ush them at will/ carrying out a successfulcam!aign of elenchic warfare* Successfully setting the terms of the discussion means thatSocrates has already won half the %attle*Gorgias dramatiDes the struggle over what the interlocutors will discuss as wellas how they will discuss it* If Socrates sets the formal !arameters of the dialogue/ he alsosets the su%stantive agenda of the discussion* The Socratic maneuver is su%tle/ %ut Platosu!!lies enough clues so that we do not mistake its significance* Polus and 'allicles %othdefend some version of the thesis that it is %etter to commit in0ustice than suffer it* To arguethe other way round/ as does Socrates/ is a !loy to force a slave morality on the strong andno%le natures of the masters* The argument Socrates !ursues here/ however/ does notconcern the su!eriority of the life of 0ustice over the life of in0ustice/ %ut rather whethereveryone already %elieves as much* Socrates defends the following !osition< 6I %elieve thatyou and I and all men consider doing in0ustice to %e worse than suffering it7 8F-F%:* Polus/a!!arently unaware of the su%tle/ although crucial/ shift in the e!istemological stakes of thede%ate/ res!onds accordingly with the counter< 6I %elieve that neither you nor I nor anyoneelse %elieves that7 8F-F%G:* 4hat is !lain from this !assage is that Socrates and Polus arearguing a%out what they already belie!e a%out 0ustice and in0ustice/ not what is in fact the






case* 4e always !refer 0ustice to in0ustice/ Socrates argues/ even if we do not alwayschoose it/ since we are often wrong a%out what is truly in our %est interest* >y moving thediscussion onto the terrain of 6what you and I and all men already %elieve/7 Socrates doesnot have to !rove anything a%out 0ustice and in0ustice* [33 ] 1e merely has to maneuver hiso!!onent into a !osition where he will ca!itulate out of shame* >y 8re:esta%lishing theterms of the argument/ Socrates is free to wage the conversational equivalent of guerrilla

warfare< he catches his o!!onent in a contradiction %etween %elief and action/ %etweenwhat a character says and how he lives his life/ in order to change/ not only his %eliefsa%out his life/ %ut his life itself*I have %een arguing that Gorgias is a com!le5/ nuanced/ and multilayered dialogue thatviolates the e5!ectations of those who would defend the idea of uncoerced s!eech 8even if1a%ermas sometimes re0ects Socratic dialogue as a naive e5am!le of ideal s!eech: and ofthe genealogical critic who would unmask all claims to truth 8es!ecially Platonic ones: asso many instances of the will to !ower/ and so re0ect even the ironic truth/ grounded inignorance/ of Socratic !hiloso!hy*That Socrates offers !hiloso!hical dialogue as a !aradigm for !olitical deli%eration is a

serious/ although I think ironic/ gesture* The 6failure7 of either side to convince the otherim!lies that there are certain inesca!a%le constraints on the ideal s!eech situation andSocratic dialogue understood in its terms* To the e5tent that knowledge is virtue/ rationallygrounded agreement would have to result in conviction* >ut it is a!!arent from thedialogue that intellectual agreement does not necessarily !roduce e5istential conviction*Cnlike critical theory#s faith in the 6unforced force of the %etterargument/7 Gorgias acknowledges the concrete realities that condition the search fortruth* Gorgias shows us that !ure Socratic dialogue is/ indeed/ 6not !ossi%le anywhere or atany time7 %y showing us the structural/ material/ and e5istential realities of !ower thatdisa%le the mutually %eneficial search for truth* [34 ] At the same time it shows us/ negatively

!erha!s/ those qualities2honesty 8 parrhēsia :/ goodwill 8 eunoia :/ mutuality 8 homologia :/

and fearlessness2that ena%le a !hiloso!hical as well as a !olitical dialogue*In the 6end/7 [35 ] Socrates defeats 'allicles %ut does not !ersuade him< the !oliticianwithdraws from the conversation* >ut the !ur!ose of de%ate is to !ersuade one#s o!!onentto change his life as well as his %eliefs* ormal refutation is insufficient< knowledge must

%ecome virtue* To the e5tent that this manifestly does not occur with 'allicles/ Socratesfails to meet his own 6self;set standards of success*7 [36 ] The dialogue is/ then/ a failure/

%ecause it does not reach 'allicles on its own terms* Socratic !hiloso!hy is a failure/ %ecause if it cannot reach the 6touchstone7 'allicles/ it has little !oint or !lace in Athens*Socrates/ and Socratic !hiloso!hy/ then/ is more a!!ro!riately characteriDed as an o%0ectlesson to %e avoided/ rather than as a !aradigm to %e emulated or imitated*'ertainly/ "ailure is too strong a word* After all/ 'allicles cannot !ut Socrates down* =orethan once he re0oins the conversation after la!sing into silence* Echoing an o%servationmade earlier %y Polus 8F ,e:/ 'allicles admits that he is at once attracted to/ and re!elled

%y/ Socrates* 6I do not know how it is/7 'allicles admits in what is !erha!s one of his moretruthful utterances/ 6%ut your words attract me Socrates* et as with most !eo!le you donot quite convince me7 8JH+cJ:* Although Socrates has not quite made his case/ still'allicles cannot sto! talking to him* There is no final closure here< Socrates is not

!ersuasive/ and 'allicles has not quite severed the tenuous %ond that holds them together*The !olitician and !hiloso!her will continue talking to each other/ for !olitics will notsu%mit/ and !hiloso!hy has not yet had the last word* There is still work to %e done/ for theground of !hiloso!hy 8and of !olitics: remains essentially contested and contesta%le*

Mnowledge of that contesta%ility/ at least in Gorgias, is what makes Socratic !hiloso!hy political !hiloso!hy* =ore im!ortant/ Socrates# 6failure7 to convince 'alliclesdoes not signal the failure of the dialogue* After all/ the dialogue is not trying to convince















'allicles/ %ut rather its !otential readers/ who are/ %eyond Plato#s immediate students/ anaudience of uns!ecified and unknown readers* And if I am right/ Gorgias contains a lessona%out its 8and !hiloso!hy#s: own rhetoricity*Gorgias thus does not leave matters with an unsuccessful Socrates and an incorrigi%le'allicles* As we have seen/ the dialogue !eriodically alerts its readers to the way in whichwhat counts as true is determined %y e5tra!hiloso!hical means/ %y means outside/ %elow/or !rior to the 6agreed u!on7 !arameters of Socratic dialectic* [37 ] This su%te5tin Gorgias largely concerns who will control the terms of !hiloso!hical discourse/ and thatcontrol is the su%stance of the agon %etween Socrates and his interlocutors* or onceSocrates# !artners su%mit to the condition of question and answer/ to dialectic instead ofrhetoric/ the dialogue has shifted decisively in !hiloso!hy#s favor* That Socrates aims to setthe terms of discourse/ and so control the dialogical as well as the !olitical community/creates a !arado5* &oes not the dialogue instantiate a !aradigm of uncoercedcommunication %y means of su%tly coercive rhetorical strategies while it simultaneouslydenies the o!eration of these tactics through its commitment to 6the argument7 8 logos :?1as not Socrates transgressed the rules of !hiloso!hical discourse at the very moment andin the very act of esta%lishing them? Gorgias must then 6conceal the ga!s it o!ens %yrecourse to tactics it o!!oses*7 [38 ] 'allicles is right/ it seems< Socrates hides his will to

!ower %ehind the !hiloso!hical fa ade of truth*All this im!lies that Gorgias contains its own rhetorical dimension/ that its dramaticstructure 8%roadly understood: tellingly reveals those ga!s the dialogue o!ens %y !ointinge5!licitly to the 6tactics7 used %y Socrates %ut o!!osed %y 6Socratic7

!hiloso!hy* Gorgias %oth !osits an ideal s!eech situation as a model for !olitics andreveals the intricate 8and !erha!s inelucta%le: workings of !ower involved in thecolla%orative search for incontesta%le !olitical foundations* The dialogue thus forces us toreflect/ not only on the difficulties 8which are formida%le enough: that attendcommunicatively achieved understanding/ %ut also on what is su!!ressed/ neglected/ or

ignored in the !rocess of attaining such rationally motivated agreement* Socrates insiststhat truth is intersu%0ective and rests in an im!ortant sense on freely given conviction/ andhis efforts are in good !art given over 8unsuccessfully: to esta%lishing the %asis for suchmeaningful communication* et Gorgias makes an even stronger claim a%out theim!urities of reason in its account of rhetoricity* The dialogue#s irreduci%le rhetoricaldimension2dramatiDed in the agon %etween Socrates and 'allicles over who will controlthe terms of discourse2further alerts us to a lacuna in critical theory#s account ofuncoerced s!eech/ a lacuna that makes the theory not es!ecially attentive to the su%tleworkings of its own linguistic 6!ower7 to constitute what counts as 6truth*7Although 1a%ermas no longer !osits an 6ideal s!eech situation7 anchored %ytranscendental moorings/ his qualified claim that communicatively achieved agreement isimmanent in the anthro!ologically dee!;seated structure of everyday s!eech still im!lies anideal or norm that e5cludes other forms of s!eech as valid %ecause they fall %elow itsthreshold of rationality* [39 ] The very norm of rationality2in this case of the free/reasona%le/ and res!onsi%le agent to achieve a common situation definition %ased on validcriteria2constitutes a su%tle mechanism of !ower that !redefines what is reasona%le andrational/ and so systematically e5cludes what is other/ alien/ or different in %oth individualand society* [40 ] Those feelings/ motives/ e5!eriences/ and selves that remain inarticulate orindistinct within the schema of rationally sanctioned discourse su%sequently %ecome theo%0ects of disci!linary control/ a control that tends to vitiate difference/ contri%ute touniformity/ and hasten the conformity and thoughtlessness that any critical theory rightlysus!ects and fears* [41 ] If genealogy does not readily acknowledge that 6to s!eak is NnotalwaysO to fight/7 then critical theory is not always sufficiently attuned to the effects of

!ower that !roduce its own !ossi%ility nor to the effects of !ower it !roduces* Gorgias indicates how a critical theory that does not make itself the su%0ect of its


















own genealogy of truth runs the risk/ too/ of concealing or denying those su%tly coerciverhetorical strategies and tactics that attend even the %est;intentioned attem!ts atunconstrained communication*&oes such a deconstructive reading of the dialogue/ and of the ideal s!eech situation/a%andon all !otentially universal moral standards for the endlessly re!eated !lay ofdomination? &oes Gorgias in the end really confer victory u!on 'allicles and rhetoric/

"ietDsche and oucault/ while Socrates and !hiloso!hy/ 1a%ermas and reason/ areunavoida%ly im!licated in the workings of !ower? 'an the dialogue %e reduced merely to astruggle over who will control the language in which citiDens s!eak/ as this inter!retationsuggests? 'allicles himself !rovides one indication that reasoned agreement is !ossi%le andso !artially validates Socrates# !reference for the truth* That admission comes at the !ointin the e5change %etween Socrates and 'allicles when the latter defends good !leasuresagainst %ad/ the strong and no%le against the weak and %ase 8F))c:* 'allicles has a!!ealedto an implicit standard all along/ a standard that Socrates e5!oses %y suggesting a !leasureso igno%le that even 'allicles squirms* This reliance on an im!licit standard of 0udgmentreveals a telling ga! in oucault#s own account of genealogical critique that %elies the

!ossi%ility of the critic#s own !rofessed 6ha!!y !ositivism*7 oucault steadfastly refuses8!erha!s this is his %lind s!ot: to inquire into the motivations that guide his own criticalactivity* If he did/ would he not have to admit/ with 'allicles/ that some regimes of !owerare not 0ust different/ %ut %etter than others? [42 ] And is an unreflective genealogy that failsto investigate its !resu!!ositions not in danger of %ecoming the new norm/ standard/ orcenter/ which would then require its own genealogical critique? Gorgias dramatiDes2andthe historical trium!h of Socratic2Platonic !hiloso!hy over so!histic rhetoric confirms2 the susce!ti%ility of critical and even revolutionary movements to travel from the marginstoward the center/ from the outside to the inside/ so that the radicalism of today %ecomesthe !arty of order tomorrow* Gorgias thus contains a !rofound irony/ all %ut lost on thecanonists/ rationalists/ and other self;!roclaimed enemies of deconstructive !lay< in an

effort to distur% its own 8and all?: drive toward closure/ the dialogue !ortrays a Socratesmore attuned to the su%tle workings of rhetoric and !ower than his formida%le adversary'allicles/ a !hiloso!hy that acknowledges its own im!licit reliance on !olitics/ even as ittries to transcend that reliance/ and a !hiloso!her who resists canoniDation %y thehagiogra!hers of truth/ even as Plato !laces him at the head of the Athenian !oliticalhierarchy*Gorgias !ushes at the limits of %oth the ideal s!eech situation and the o%stacles that inhi%itits attainment/ at the search for truth and the realities of !ower/ at the !ractices of dialecticand rhetoric/ !hiloso!hy and !olitics* This !ers!ective on Gorgias alerts us to theinsufficiencies in the accounts of truth#s relation to !ower given us %y 1a%ermas and

oucault* If critical theory ultimately succum%s to a %lind s!ot in its attem!t to disentangle !ower from knowledge 8as I think Gorgias reveals:/ then genealogical criticism suffersfrom a similar de%ility in its refusal to acknowledge that its own deconstructive energyfeeds u!on the e5istence of ideals that make intelligi%le the real/ u!on norms to define whatis deviant/ u!on a center against which to mo%iliDe the margins* If critical theory tooreadily !osits its own version of reason as an incontesta%le final marker/ genealogicalcritique too readily dismisses those traditional sign!osts 8truth and reason included: thathel! us negotiate the difficult terrain of a !ostmodern geogra!hy virtually withoutlandmarks* inally/ if critical theory ultimately fails to make itself the su%0ect of its owncritical inquiry/ then genealogical !lay/ while it certainly deconstructs final markers/similarly fails to e5cavate its own origins and there%y tends to reinstate itself as anothermarker of finality* Gorgias neither calls for the 6dissolution of final markers7 [43 ]toutcourt nor !osits a teleological truth that will secure the horiDons of our identities/ !ractices/and institutions once and for all* ather/ the dialogue maintains in !roductive tension twocontradictory/ %ut no less necessary/ im!ulses< it %oth !ro0ects !hiloso!hical dialogue as a









foundation for !olitics and contests that !ro0ection through the agonistic struggle %etween'allicles and Socrates2a struggle that leads not to annihilation %ut to the continuousactivity of contests* Gorgias thus cultivates an agonistic ethos that is %oth

!hiloso!hical and !olitical/ dialectical and rhetorical/ aware of the acute desire for !hiloso!hical foundations %eyond !olitical contest and of the need to distur% suchfoundations* The dialogue#s great achievement is to kee! these contradictions2which are

our contradictions as well2alive and so !rohi%it us from !rivileging either side of thecontest and sli!!ing into a forgetfulness a%out the !olitical character of truth/ a !oliticsdramatiDed %y Gorgias itself*A retros!ective glance %ack over Gorgias shows it to %e concerned with foundations/ withthe need to esta%lish a solid !hiloso!hical ground for Athenian !olitics* $n closeins!ection/ however/ that !hiloso!hical foundation a!!ears less than sta%le/ %uilt onshifting rather than !ermanent soil/ a fractured mass traversed %y fissures and cracks/ shotthrough with !arado5 and contradiction* As we have seen/ the dialogue hints at varioussolutions to finding 8or founding: a sta%le %asis for !olitics %eyond question/ o!!osition/ orrhetorical mani!ulation/ yet it returns us again and again to that essentially contestedterrain* The dialogue searches/ now ho!efully/ now resignedly/ for a ground %eyond !olitics

2%eyond !ower2in the dialectical !hiloso!hy of Socrates/ only to reveal !hiloso!hy#sfounding moment as2!olitical* Gorgias cannot/ or does not/ wholly disentangle truth from

!ower/ %ut rather im!licates each in the construction of the other* $ne way to characteriDethis ina%ility/ or refusal/ to se!arate !hiloso!hy from !olitics/ truth from !ower/ and anchorthe latter in the former/ is as a 6failure*7 >ut we have also seen that "ailure is !erha!s toostrong a word/ not only %ecause the contest ends inconclusively and so kee!sthe agon alive/ %ut also %ecause/ as one might imagine/ Gorgias is nothing like Plato#s finalword on the su%0ect* The intracta%le !ro%lems of !olitics and the genuine yearning to !lacethose !ro%lems and their solutions %eyond contesta%ility !ersist in Plato#s theoreticalimagination well %eyond the writing of Gorgias. Plato continues that effort in what is

!erha!s the founding work of 4estern !olitical !hiloso!hy< the Republic. It is to thatformida%le and foundational dialogue that Gorgias !oints/ and to which I now turn myattention*

-otesH* I have relied !rimarily on Gorgias# A Re!ised $ext with %ntroduction and &ommentary, ed* E* * &odds 8$5ford< 'larendon Press/ H)J):/and Gorgias, trans*/ with notes/ %y Terence Irwin 8$5ford< 'larendon Press/ H)-):* Translations are Irwin#s/ unless otherwise noted* N>A'M O

(* In evidence that the dialogue is not a%out rhetoric/ Gorgias, ed* &odds/ !* H/ cites =a5 PohlenD/ Aus Platos 'erde(eit# Philologische)ntersuchungen 8>erlin< 4eidmann/ H)H+:/ HF(/ HJH3 Clrich von 4ilamowitD;=oellendorf/ Platon# *ein +eben und seine 'erke, ( vols* 8H)H)3>erlin< 4eidmann/ H)J) G(:/ H< (+F3 A* E* Taylor/ Plato# $he an and -is 'ork 8H)(G3 +d ed*/ "ew ork< &ial Press/ H)():/ H,G 86Life and theway it should %e lived/ not the value of rhetoric/ is the real theme7:/ and AndrK estugiere/ &ontemplation et !ie contemplati!e selon

Platon 8Paris< @* rin/ H)+G:/ + ( 86The true su%0ect is the knowledge of what is the life that a man worthy of the name ought to lead7:* E5ce!tionsto these inter!retations are Eric oegelin#s 6The Gorgias, 7 in Plato and Aristotle, vol* (< rder and -istory 8>aton ouge< Louisiana StateCniversity Press/ H)J-:3 Paul riedlQnder/ Plato, trans* 1ans =eyerhoff/ vol* ( 8"ew ork< Pantheon >ooks/ H)J :/ and 4erner@aeger/ Paideia, vol* ( 8"ew ork< $5ford Cniversity Press/ H)F+:* 'harles Mahn/ 6&ialogue and &ialectic in Plato#s .orgias/7 in x"ord *tudies

in Ancient Philosophy, vol* H/ ed* @ulia Annas 8$5ford< 'larendon Press/ H) +:/ and ichard =cMim/ 6Shame and Truth in Plato#s Gorgias, 7in Platonic 'ritings / Platonic Readings, ed* 'harles .riswold/ !!* +F F 8"ew ork< outledge/ H) :/ are attentive to the inse!ara%leconnection %etween the craft of rhetoric and the morals of the craftsman* N>A'M O

+* See/ e*g*/ =ichel oucault/ 6"ietDsche/ .enealogy/ 1istory/7 in $he 0oucault Reader, ed* Paul a%inow 8"ew ork< Pantheon >ooks/ H) F:3@acques &errida/ 6Plato#s Pharmacy/7 in 1issemination, trans* >ar%ara @ohnson 8'hicago< Cniversity of 'hicago Press/ H) H:3 and @ean; ran oisLyotard and @ean;Lou! ThK%aud/ 2ust Gaming, trans* 4lad .odDich 8=innea!olis< Cniversity of =innesota Press/ H) J:/ !!* (G ( / -F -J/- * N>A'M O

F* @Brgen 1a%ermas/$he $heory o" &ommunicati!e Action# Reason and the Rationali(ation o" *ociety, trans* Thomas =c'arthy 8>oston< >eaconPress/ H) F/ H) -:/ H< ( -* N>A'M O

J* =ichel oucault/ 6The Ethic of 'are for the Self/7 in $he 0inal 0oucault, ed* @ames >ernauer and &avid asmussen 8'am%ridge/ =ass*< =ITPress/ H) :/ !* H * N>A'M O

G* Such a discounting characteriDes 1a%ermas#s criticism of the rhetorical in &errida* See @Brgen 1a%ermas/ 6$n Leveling the .enre &istinction %etween Philoso!hy and hetoric/7 in $he Philosophical 1iscourse o" odernity# $wel!e +ectures 8'am%ridge/ =ass*< =IT Press/ H) -:/ !!*H J (H,* N>A'M O

-* I%id*/ !* H *N>A'M O

* @ean; ran ois Lyotard/ $he Postmodern &ondition# A Report on 3nowledge, trans* .eoff >ennington and >rian =assumi 8=innea!olis<Cniversity of =innesota Press/ H) F:/ !* H,* N>A'M O

)* 4illiam 'onnolly/ $he $erms o" Political 1iscourse, (d ed* 8Princeton/ "*@*< Princeton Cniversity Press/ H) +:* N>A'M O

H,* riedlQnder/ Plato, (< (GH*N>A'M O

HH* I%id*/ (F-*N>A'M O







































H(* Mahn/ 6&ialogue and &ialectic/7 !* H* N>A'M O

H+* Alci%iades# relationshi! to Socrates is evidenced in *ymposium (H(d2((+d/ and his less;than;e5em!lary %ehavior is de!icted inThucydides -istory o" the Peloponnesian 'ar G*( *( and G*GH*H -/ on the affair of the 1ermai3 G* )*H G and G*)(*H -/ where he goes over to theS!artans3 *FF*H *JG*J/ where he intrigues with the S!artans3 and * G*F -/ where he reverts to the Athenian side* N>A'M O

HF* oegelin/ rder and -istory, !* (J* N>A'M O

HJ* I%id*/ !* +H3 @aeger/ Paideia, (< H+ 3Gorgias, ed* &odds/ !* (G-* N>A'M O

HG* This !oint is com!licated %y the fact that Plato shows 'allicles a%le to !lay a similar game as well* At F Je the orator introduces thecharacters Rethus and Am!hion from Euri!ides# lost !lay Antiope, suggesting that he/ 'allicles/ will !lay Rethus to Socrates# Am!hion in theirargument over which life/ the active and !olitical or the contem!lative and !rivate/ is %est* The !oint/ of course/ is that Rethus and Am!hionare twins, and the strategy has o%vious im!lications/ not only for 'allicles# friendly relation to Socrates/ %ut also for !hiloso!hy#s relation to

!olitics* $n the significance of Antiope for Gorgias, see Andrea "ightingale/ 6Plato#s Gorgias and Euri!ides# Antiope# A Study in .enericTransformation/7 &lassical Anti4uity HH/ H 8A!r* H))(:< H(H FH*N>A'M O

H-* $n "ietDsche#s relation to the dialogue/ see Gorgias, ed* &odds/ a!!endi5/ 6Socrates/ 'allicles/ and "ietDsche/7 !!* + - )H/ where &oddsgathers a wealth of references in "ietDsche#s cor!us relating to 'allicles/ Socrates/ Plato/ and the So!hists* N>A'M O

H * &odds 8i%id*/ !* (G : has not failed to notice the !arallel with the argument made %y Athenian generals at =elos according to which citieso%ey the rule of the stronger 8 upo phuse5s anangkaias :/ which is later referred to as a law 8 nomos : in Thucydides# -istory J*H,J*(* 'f*'allicles# kata nomon ge tēn tēs phuse5s 8F +e+:*N>A'M O

H)* This is/ of course/ Pericles/ in the uneral $ration* Thucydides -istory (*FH*F J*N>A'M O

(,* oegelin/ rder and -istory, !* ( * N>A'M O

(H* See Socrates# allusion to his ine5!erience in legal !rocedure at Gorgias J((%+2c(/ and his o!ening s!eech in the Apology, where heconfesses his unfamiliarity with the !rocedures of the law court* N>A'M O

((* 4erner @aeger/ Paideia, (< HFH*N>A'M O

(+* >oth oegelin/ rder and -istory, !* +F/ and riedlQnder/ Plato, (< (GH/ see this touch as distinctly authorial and suggest Plato#s own dou%tsa%out the success of the Socratic enter!rise* N>A'M O

(F* riedlQnder/ Plato, (< (FJ* N>A'M O(J* Gorgias, ed* &odds/ !* + F/ quotes * &e =agalhaes; ilhena/ *ocrate et la legende platonicienne 8Paris< Presses universitaires de rance/H)J(:/ !* H( * The !hrase is/ of course/ from 'lausewitD* N>A'M O

(G* eferences in the dialogue cover a s!an from F() >*'*/ the year of Pericles# death/ to F,J >*'*/ the year after the trial of the generalsres!onsi%le at Arginusae* See Gorgias / ed* &odds/ !!* H- H / and Arlene Sa5onhouse/ 6An Cns!oken Theme inPlato#s Gorgias# 4ar/7 %nterpretation HH/ ( 8=ay H) +:< HF( FF* N>A'M O

(-* =ichel oucault/ 1iscipline and Punish# $he 6irth o" the Prison, trans* Alan Sheridan 8H)--3 re!r*/ "ew ork< intage >ooks/ H)-):/ !*+, * N>A'M O

( * @aeger/ Paideia, (< HFH*N>A'M O

()* 'f* the Apology, which concludes on a similar note< Socrates remains calm in the face of death and !rofesses ignorance a%out life after death/as he does here/ %ut is !essimistic a%out the !olitical efficacy of !hiloso!hy in a city like Athens* Pessimistic resignation is !erha!s too strong/however/ %ecause in the end/ Socrates is vindicated* In the story of the afterlife/ it is 'allicles the !olitician who will 6reel and ga!e7 %efore hisdivine 0udges/ 0ust as Socrates did %efore his human ones* This is the argument of "ightingale/ 6Plato#s Gorgias and Euri!ides# Antiope. 7 This may

%e true/ %ut it indicates Plato#s 0udgment/ certainly/ and is decidedly a turn away from the !olitical life* =y argument/ of course/ isthat Gorgias holds these two im!ulses in tension/ so I do not read the mythos that concludes the dialogue as a definitive vindication of the

!hiloso!hical life* 'allicles has some/ although not all/ of my sym!athy* N>A'M O

+,* This is further com!licated %y the fact that Alci%iades was Pericles# ward* Socrates and Pericles %oth share/ then/ in the forming of Alci%iades*Socrates# condemnation of Pericles then %egins to reflect on himself and %rings Socrates closer to .orgias in the dialogue/ insofar as .orgiasadmires Pericles and the tradition of Athenian statesmanshi!* N>A'M O

+H* Mahn/ 6&ialogue and &ialectic in Plato#s Gorgias, 7 !!* -J -G* N>A'M O

+(* =cMim/ 6Shame and Truth in Plato#s Gorgias, 7 !* +-* N>A'M O

++* See i%id*N>A'M O

+F* @Brgen 1a%ermas/ 3nowledge and -uman %nterests, trans* @eremy @* Sha!iro 8>oston< >eacon Press/ H)-H:* $n this !oint/ 1a%ermasand Gorgias agree< a critical theory e5!oses the !ower and asymmetry that o%scure or otherwise distort s!eech situations so as to clear the way forthe 6unforced force of the %etter argument*7 $n this reading/ Socrates/ too/ has an interest/ %ut it is in the 6truth*7 I argue that Gorgias and criticaltheory !art ways !recisely at the !oint where the dialogue concedes the irreduci%le !resence of rhetoric in even the most honest of !hiloso!hicaldialogues/ whereas 1a%ermas aims to !urge all s!eech of its rhetorical contaminations* or the technical discussion of illocutionary and

!erlocutionary s!eech acts/ which corres!ond to the difference %etween !ro!ositional statement and rhetorical effect/ and of how this distinction is !ossi%le/ see 1a%ermas $heory o" &ommunicati!e Action, vol* H/ 6Intermediate eflections*7 N>A'M O

+J* I !ut it this way %ecause/ as will %ecome clear/ I#m not sure Gorgias really ends* $f course/ the dialogue sto!s in a conventional sense/ %ut itslasting im!ression is one of further !rovocation/ not final closure* N>A'M O

+G* @ames L* 4iser/ 6The orce of eason< $n eading Plato#s Gorgias, 7 in $he thical 1imension o" Political +i"e, ed* rancis 'anavan8&urham/ "*'*< &uke Cniversity Press/ H) +:/ !* JG* N>A'M O

+-* This !oint is similar to .iovanni errari#s reading in his +istening to the &icadas# A *tudy o" Plato’s Phaedrus 8'am%ridge< 'am%ridgeCniversity Press/ H) -:/ !* GG/ where he argues that 6!hiloso!hy has the !eculiar quality of instantiating itself even as it e5amines its ownconditions of !ossi%ility*7 errari offers this assessment in the conte5t of Socrates# mythmaking/ %ut structurally our !oints are the same* N>A'M O

+ * 4illiam 'onnolly/ 6&emocracy and Territoriality7 in illenium# 2ournal o" %nternational *tudies (,/ + 84inter H))H:< FG * N>A'M O

+)* In 7ur Rekonstruktion des -istorischen aterialismus 8 rankfurt< Suhrkam!/ H)-G:/ !* (FH/ 1a%ermas finds 6anthro!ologically dee!;seatedgeneral structures7 in all s!eech* These structures !redate humanity as such< 6La%or and language are older than man and society781a%ermas/ &ommunication and the !olution o" *ociety, trans* Thomas =c'arthy N>oston< >eacon Press/ H)-)O/ !* H+-:* N>A'M O

F,* or an account of this norm as it functions in a discourse ethics/ see the essays in @Brgen 1a%ermas/ oral &onsciousness and &ommunicati!e Action, trans* '* Lenhardt and S* "icholsen 8'am%ridge/ =ass*< =IT Press/ H)),:/ es!* the title essay and 6&iscourse Ethics< "otes on a Programof Philoso!hical @ustification*7 In those essays/ 1a%ermas sets out his !rinci!le of universaliDa%ility< a norm is universal if 6the consequences andside effects that its general o%servance can %e e5!ected to have for the satis faction of the !articular interests of each !erson affected must %e suchthat all affected can acce!t them freely7 8!!* GJ/ H(,:* =y account of Gorgias means to show that this !rinci!le of argumentation/ which rests onthe 6free acce!tance7 of validity claims/ !resu!!oses2indeed conceals2a standard of and !rocedure for rational discourse that isitself contestable. N>A'M O

FH* This !aragra!h %orrows from the discussion of 1a%ermas in my essay 6>etween =odernity and Postmodernity/7 Political $heory ((/ H 8 e%*H))F:< -* N>A'M O

F(* "ancy raser/ among others/ has asked this question a%out im!licit normative standards* See her 6 oucault on =odern Power< Em!iricalInsights and "ormative 'onfusions/7 Praxis %nternational H/ + 8$ct* H) H:< (-( -* I agree in general with her !oint/ %ut in !olariDing thecontradictions in the relationshi! %etween !ower and normativity/ rather than thinking them in tension/ as Socrates does in Gorgias, she/ like









































































































1a%ermas/ tells only half the story* See also 1a%ermas/ Philosophical 1iscourse o" odernity, ch* H,/ 6Some uestions 'oncerning the Theory ofPower< oucault Again*7 N>A'M O

F+* 'laude Lefort/ 1emocracy and Political $heory, trans* &avid =arcy/ 8=innea!olis< Cniversity of =innesota Pess/ H) :* N>A'M O

. P*ato s Republic

on founding the Theoretica* I"agination+othing in man—not even his body—is sufficiently stable to serve as the basis for self$recognition orfor understanding other men.

/he philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways0 the point, however, is to change it.

/he whole is the false.

#lato-s Republic is a founding te(t. [ 1 ] When Alfred +orth Whitehead remarked, in a famous andoften$2uoted phrase, that the :uropean philosophical tradition %consists of a series of footnotes

to #lato,& he might ustly have added that the :uropean tradition of political philosophy consistsof a series of footnotes to the Republic . [ 2 ] ertainly no work of political thought has morevigorously captured the utopian political imagination. )rom icero to the +eoplatonists, from/homas 1ore to /homas 9obbes, and from the socialist utopias of the nineteenth century to thescience fiction utopias of the twentieth, the Republic has endured as a benchmark, a standardfrom which to begin thinking about the fundamental problems of politics. ;f course, #lato-sutopian dream has not gone uncritici ed. /hinkers as diverse as 9annah Arendt and Oarl #opperhave denounced the Republic as a dystopian nightmare bordering on totalitarianism. )or them,#lato certainly continues to instruct us, but his most salutary lessons are negative. /hey construe#lato-s Republic less as an appealing paradigm than as an ob ect lesson to be avoided./oday such instruction by way of criticism continues, even as contemporary critics shift accentsand alter inflections. /wo e(amples should clarify this point. )or those e(cluded from the:uropean tradition, the Republic is indeed a founding te(t, but what it founds is a tradition ofWestern cultural hegemony. At a time when the currency of the classics has been devalued by amulticultural economy that daily disinvests in the %tradition,& #lato-s Republic says less and less tomore and more people. In these diverse and divisive times, any e(pectations thatthe Republic might supply us with congenial answers to our most pressing political problems havebeen dispersed in a solvent of cultural, religious, and ethnic differences, differences that haveincreasingly come to define the contours of contemporary politics. )or their part, modernists andpostmodernists alike decry any return to #lato-s founding vision as a desperate flight into anirrecoverable past, a retreat into coercive community that flirts with profoundly dangerousconse2uences. At a time when the sovereign, territorial nation$state has been renderedincreasingly porous—and perhaps anachronistic—by the rapid globali ation of permanentlydestabili ing forces, #lato-s vision of a homogeneous, face$to$face, territorially organi ed, andhierarchically ordered moral community cannot appear as anything but dangerously nostalgic.[ 3 ] /o think that the ancient concepts can be wrenched from their institutional conte(t and putsuccessfully to work amid the comple( realities of the postmodern nation$state is an e(ercise asfutile as it is foolish.5espite these most recent criticisms, the Republic persists. Such persistence might be e(plainedby #lato-s residual status as a %classic,& by the sheer weight and inertia of a yet$to$be$overcometradition. ;r perhaps #lato continues to haunt our political and theoretical imaginations becausethe Republic addresses our profoundly felt and permanently unrelieved yearnings for community,solidarity, and authority. /he resurgent wave of communitarian nostalgia that has emerged as aprominent feature of our shifting postmodern landscape articulates ust such a yearning for thewarmth of home, the solidity of place, and the security of a fi(ed cultural identity. ertainly, allthese longings find seductive e(pression in #lato. Whether as utopian dream to emulate ordystopian nightmare to denounce, whether we think with it or against it—the Republic remains a

founding te(t. /o acknowledge it as such !and #lato as a founder", is not, however, to give thebook the first !or last" word in the matter, nor yet to succumb to its nostalgic seductiveness. At atime when those few foundations that have not !yet" cracked are suspect, suchacknowledgement need not, and must not, place #lato-s work beyond criticism. 3et to ignore its
















importance or to dismiss its considerable power to nourish thought is to do so at one-s peril./he Republic may not be a te(t to revere or privilege, but it is certainly one to respect.+iet sche-s remark that a friend ought to be a worthy enemy applies no less to #lato. That kind ofrespect, the respect for one-s opponent, informs my own relationship to #lato-s Republic andguides my appropriation of it. [ ] *ut my aim in offering one more reading of the Republic isneither to rediscover %what #lato said& [ ! ] nor to recover the conte(t in which he was able to sayit in the first place. I am not interested in rescuing a liberal #lato, reviving a communitarian #lato,

or denouncing a totalitarian one. I want to turn #lato to other, more radical, purposes by usinghim !often against himself" to intervene in the current struggle over the nature, status, andpolitics of theory.As we have seen, that struggle presents us with a choice between a critical theory and agenealogical criti2ue of society, between a theory confident of its ability to distinguish betweenlegitimate and illegitimate regimes, ust and un ust e(ercises of power, and an anti$theorysuspicious of all such attempts to ground politics in a theoretical discourse that reconcilescontradictions in an all$encompassing totality. Where the critical theory of 9abermas re2uires anenlightenment metanarrative of emancipation, in which all particular positions, practices, andidentities might be harmoni ed through a set of universally valid rules of argumentation,)oucault-s antitheoretical genealogies e(pose the foundationalist pretensions of such globali ingdiscourses as so many regulative ideals that conceal their normali ing and disciplinary effects forthe self and order. /his controversy leaves us, then, with the choice between validating actionand udgment in the give$and$take of moral communication and debate or participating in agame of global consensus that regulari es the rules of rationality and thereby also normali es thedifferences among acting and speaking sub ects themselves.#olari ed by the opposition between a critical theory that would think and udge the whole and agenealogical wariness of the tyranny of all globali ing discourses, 9abermas and )oucaultconstruct mutually antagonistic accounts of the theoretical impulse to stabili e all politics in aground beyond contest. Where critical theory seeks ultimately to construct a systematic discoursethat harmoni es all its components into a conceptual order that goes into reality withoutremainder, genealogical criti2ue mobili es those !inevitable" remainders—the selves and sub ectsthat do not fit neatly into the order—against the accretions and sedimentations of an orderlytheoretical discourse !and social system" that creates them as its founding repudiation. If criticaltheory in the end pro ects stable arrangements, genealogy disrupts those settlements, e(posingthe lie in all systems founded on such stability and order. *ut might it be possible to cultivate atheoretical imagination that both construes and denies such ultimate grounds, a discourse thatsustains the !useful" fiction of a theoretical !and political" totality and at the same time disturbsthat totality by means of a subversive !te(tual and political" practice? In other words, can wearticulate a postfoundationalist sensibility that introduces heterogeneity, difference, and contestinto our theoretical visions without at the same time relin2uishing the need for !temporary"resting spots such te(tual and political agonistics are intended to disrupt?#lato-s Republic suggests a way to elaborate ust such an agonistics, an appropriate sensibility forthe work of !con"founding the theoretical imagination now re2uired. #ut in simple, although notaltogether misleading, terms, the Republic attempts to sink the foundations of politics—of rule,authority, and order—in an unshakeable truth beyond contest or 2uestion. #lato offers thestrongest possible case for such a grounding, and although that pro ect ultimately fails !and I

think it fails on its own terms", it nonetheless offers valuable lessons about the tragicshortcomings of the #latonic theoretical imagination. /o this end, the present chapter e(ploresthose foundings and foundations that the Republic constitutes !as foundationalist philosophy" andthat constitute the Republic !as canonical te(t" for their con founding possibilities. *y turning thete(t against itself, by searching out the gaps, the cracks, and the irregularities that traverse itslandscape, this chapter appropriates the Republic as a book that not only founds, but alsodisturbs, the Western theoretical imagination. 1y hope is that #lato will provide salutary lessonsin the seductions and dangers of global political theory, and I approach him as an importantteacher on these matters. I also, indirectly, challenge those readings that interpretthe Republic too comfortably—as either utopian dream or dystopian nightmare—readings thattame its disturbingly radical vision through dismissal or assimilation. 1y intention is to pursue#lato-s ability to provoke thought about the possibilities of theory and politics by appropriatinga Republic that is theoretically and politically provoking. #erhaps the Republic can disrupt ourfamiliar categories because it is such an unsettling and disruptive book itself, a book thatchallenges contemporary theoretical and political principles no less than it challenged theprinciples of the Athenian democracy of its day. Such a Republic would contribute to the work of







!con"founding the theoretical imagination, a perpetual task that sustains the fiction of alltheoretical foundations even as it disrupts the tyranny of theory-s globali ing discourse andresists its attempt to constitute reality without remainder./he Republic is a foundational te(t in more ways than one. )or not only does it found !for good orfor ill" a tradition of political philosophy, but its philosophy is itself in an important sensefoundationalist. If in Gorgias, Socrates mentions the form of the Good once and merely inpassing, the Republic places it at the center of its ontology and makes it the ground of its politics.[ $ ] And while the earlier dialogue abounds with craft analogies—Socrates compares the art ofpolitics to other crafts, such as medicine—no account of the goal of the political craft iselaborated in such detail as in the Republic. Indeed, when Socrates says in Gorgias that thepurpose of the political art is to make the citi ens better, he gives little systematic substance towhat he means by that claim. 4ustice—or the ust life—remains largely undefined. :venthough Gorgias raises ustice and in ustice as central issues, it is left to the later dialogue tosupply both the ground for, and the details of, the argument that a life of ustice is preferable toits opposite. [ %] /he Republic specifies with e(cruciating precision e(actly how ustice is to beproduced in citi ens, and that precision flows directly from the philosopher-s privileged access tothe truth and subse2uent knowledge of the Good. In the Republic, the philosopher andthe techni'os are one and the same. /o employ #lato-s own metaphor, the philosopher$king caresfor the body politic as the physician cares for the individual bodies of the citi ens. ;f course,#lato never suggests that the medicine dispensed by either civic or somatic physician will be easyto swallow./he Republic thus elaborates solutions only hinted at in the earlier dialogue. As I presented it inchapter D, Gorgias reveals the problems of politics to be a source of frustration !to thephilosophically minded", as well as of constant energy and change, and repeatedly circles aroundthe proffered solutions, only to re ect !or at least only partially, with 2ualifications, to accept"them. Gorgias presents the ground of politics—including the possibility of its philosophicalgrounding—as always already contested. :ven Socratic dialectic—the proposed model for the truepolitical art—was implicated in the virtuosity and agonism of the rhetorical contest for power./he Republic, however, anchors politics firmly in the <eal, positing an unchallengeableepistemology, which provides the stable basis for the order of both soul and society.In Gorgias Socrates somewhat ironically transfers political authority to himself !and to hisdialectic" as the only Athenian practicing the true art of politics. /he Republic invests thatauthority in a class of specially trained philosophers possessed of the e(pert knowledgenecessary to achieve the true vision of the Good. :ven as it seeks to root politics in the truthfulsoil of Socratic dialectic, the Gorgias nevertheless acknowledges that philosophical ground as !inmost places and at most times" unstable and shifting, sub ect to—and the sub ect of—struggle./he Republic would seem to re ect this earlier Socratic ambivalence in its attempt to establish asecure foundation for a political order beyond politics.If the #latonic search for stable foundations and pure origins bridles at Socratic ambivalence, itdirectly repudiates Sophocles- insight into the perple(ing ironies of a mortal wisdom founded onignorance. Oedipus Tyrannos dramati es the difficulties involved in discovering pure origins andcreating stable foundations through the sheer power of intellect alone. /his impulse—to searchout a single, unifying form that will unite a world e(perienced as irreducibly heterogeneous—although largely re ected by tragedy, is present as a possibility both in ;edipus-s own search and

in the structured !dis"order of the drama itself. With Sophocles- play,#lato-s Republic contemplates the possibility !even necessity" of controlling the world, as well asthe men and women in it, through the unifying power of human intelligence. *oth Sophocles- kingand #lato-s philosopher search for a final, determinate form that will systematically encompassthe whole of e(perience and render it intelligible to ambitious rational beings. Although of verydifferent temperament and training than the impatient and unaided ;edipus !they have to beforced to rule", the philosophers of the Republic -s ideal city ultimately share his aim and 2uest./he #latonic philosopher-s ability to think abstractly and ascend from the multiplicity andindeterminacy of lived life to the singularity of an intellectual %form& that comprehends unitybeneath the diversity of the %seen particular& recalls ;edipus-s own unifying mentality. Indeed,;edipus-s solution to the riddle of the Sphin( anticipates the philosopher-s ability to discern thesingular )orm among its many embodiments, to uncover the permanent and unchanging amidthe frustrating flu( of worldly contingency./he Republic also e(presses a longing for the comfortable certainty of a stable identity that sotragically eluded ;edipus. In the ideal city, ustice is doing what is one-s own and knowing withcertainty one-s status and role in the city. Although that re2uires a lie for its legitimation, even







the philosophers come to accept the myth of autochthony as an enabling fiction necessary for theestablishment and maintenance of a stable and harmonious order. /he Republic constructs itsideal city to provide a conte(t in which certain knowledge is possible' thus does the #latonictheoretical imagination make the world safe for philosophy and philosophers. /hese philosophersare sure of what they know and certain that it is most worth knowing. Where ;edipus in the endcame to understand that profound ignorance nourishes true wisdom, and where the play as awhole teaches that it is the best and most noble of us who are capable of the greatest tyranny,

the Republic attempts a seemingly untainted vision of intellectual certainty and political stabilitythat succeeds where ;edipus failed. Where ;edipus loses power the moment he gainsknowledge, the Republic unites both in a paradigmatic embodiment that stands as a monumentto the controlling power of human reason.A te(t with a foundationalist epistemology in the sense already mentioned, the Republic alsodramati es a political %founding& as the central act of its performance. It thus anticipates mydiscussion of the themes of the Oresteia and oins that play as a form of cosmogony' [ &] both#lato and Aeschylus are involved in nothing less than acts of world creation. In both dialogue anddrama, worlds are defined through the ultimately creative power of the word. /o this end,the Republic e(amines speech at the limits of coherence and, with the Oresteia, takes us to theedge of linguistic !and political" chaos. In Aeschylus-s trilogy, we see language in the throes ofbreakdown' mishearing, misspeaking, and misanswering plague all attempts at communicationon stage. 3et the play also brings us back from that edge in a number of ways. /he fragmentedworld within the play regains its coherence when Athena ends the interminable cycle of bloodvengeance that has plagued the house of Atreus. With the foundation of the law court thatestablishes di' as legal ustice, cosmic and civic order is restored. ;restes wins ac2uittal!although the ury-s vote is tied", and Athens and Argos are allied. 1oreover, Athena successfullypersuades the )uries, now become :umenides !Oindly ;nes", to accept their new position astutelary deities of the homicide court and so of the city-s new democratic order. 1oreover, themeaning of the words lost in the e(change between the protagonists onstage is regained by theaudience watching the play. 9owever much lytemnestra succeeds in deceiving Agamemnonthrough manipulative persuasion, the spectators !or readers" see through the 2ueen-s deceitfulgame. Aeschylus here probes the limits of language and communication' the violent action of thedrama pushes the world order to the limits of its intelligibility, but that order is restored for bothcharacters and spectators alike when Athena-s newly established civic discourse merges with the

democratic discourse of the city watching the performance.#lato addresses a similar problem' the Republic portrays a world dislocated by misunderstanding,duplicity, and domination no less desperate than that dramati ed in the Oresteia. 1eaningsmultiply precipitously in the Oresteia as characters all appropriate the language of ustice for theirown purposes and interests0 similarly, book B of the Republic portrays Athenian citi ens as sofactionali ed that every interlocutor offers his own private definition of ustice. /hrasymachusarticulates the limit case when he defines and defends power as the only arbiter of meaning. #artof the dialogue-s task will be to found a ust city in speech and so mediate between thesecompeting and conflicting claims, reconciling them while respecting their integrity as far aspossible. So, while Socrates offers %tending to one-s own affairs& as a definition of ustice in bookE, ephalus-s %paying back what one owes& and #olemarchus-s %helping friends and harmingenemies& constitute suitable definitions of ustice for the classes of moneymakers and warriors.

Where Socrates- act of founding and attempt to define the meaning of ustice once and for allrecall the trial scene of the Eumenides and Athena-s own contest with the )uries toestablish di' as legal ustice, both dialogue and trilogy share a broader concern with thelinguistic conditions necessary for a successful speech community and viable political life. /heresult of that concern is the foundation of a second community or %city,& the community ofinterlocutors within the dialogue led by Socrates. *ook B is thus occupied with the obstacles thatconfront the establishment of a secure civic discourse and so a settled political order. /hecommonality of speech that such stability re2uires, however, threatens to become an e(cessiveunity, in which all citi ens say either %mine& or %not mine& simultaneously and agree all toocomplacently with every argument Socrates offers. While e(cessive unity may not be theappropriate response to e(cessive diversity, the Republic does dramati e the difficulties involvedin establishing a common linguistic ground among the interlocutors and articulates the necessityof gaining ust enough agreement to make their disagreements intelligible./he Republic also shares another fundamental concern with Greek tragedy' the constitution of acommunity outside the dialogue or play. A tragedy like the Oresteia safely dramati ed thebreakdown of linguistic and political coherence because it assumed the conte(t of a relatively





cohesive and specific audience. *ut where Aeschylean drama e(plores the limits of order andchaos within the structured confines of ritual performance and before an already$constitutedciti en$audience, #latonic dialogue lacks an institutional form and !beyond the members of theAcademy" addresses an unspecified audience of readers. /he Republic aims to constitute acommunity, not of citi en$spectators, but of citi en$theorists, or philosophers, and it does so in atleast two ways. /he dialogue offers its own model of what a political and philosophical communitylooks like, or rather it offers its readers a choice between two very distinct forms of community'

one modeled on the dialogic community of interlocutors, the other on the theoretically imaginedideal city. In either case, the foundation of a rightly ordered community becomes an e(plicittheme and a controlling aim of the dialogue, both the sub ect and the intent of #latonic politicaltheory. Since that foundation itself relies on a foundationalist ontology and epistemology, it is tothe Republic as an e(ample of %founding& theory that I now turn.

• • •ountless and diverse readings of #lato-s Republic abound, no doubt a testimony to the

comple(ity and multivocity of the work, to its seemingly ine(haustible power to generatemeaning. [ ' ] What else could account for so many different appropriations of the same book? Asan ideal utopia, as a criti2ue of idealism, as a blueprint for totalitarian politics, as a comedy andas a tragedy' there are almost as many Republic s as there are interpreters. I want to e(plorethe Republic, at least initially, for what it has to say about theory as a founding activity, wheresuch theory also implies a %foundationalist& epistemology. /his means reading #lato as both a

%heroic& and a %critical& theorist' heroic because he delineates the epic proportions of greatpolitical theory in a way that usefully describes the work of founding in the Republic= criticalbecause the means of e(planation and the standards of evaluation #lato employs share affinitieswith the tasks of a critical social theory outlined by 9abermas and introduced in chapter B./he dialogue is pervaded by the appropriately theoretical images and metaphors of sight, light,and vision. Socrates begins his famous narrative by recounting a visit to the #iraeus to see! theasthai " an inaugural festival of the /hracian goddess *endis. /his ourney to see the sightsand Socrates- assessment of the spectacle invoke and transform an earlier meaning of theword theory and the vocation of the theBros. ;riginally, a theBros was an official envoy sent bythe city to a strange or unfamiliar land to observe, and then report upon, the sacred events hehad witnessed. *ut Socrates- ourney down into the #iraeus, Athens-s port and stronghold of

radical democracy, does not conclude with his appraisal of the procession, nor does Socrateswaste much time on the festival itself. 9e 2uickly moves on to describe the more importanttheoretical vision the Republic itself proposes. /hat initial ourney, then, serves as both prete(tand conte(t for the prisoner-s ourney up and out of the cave into the light of day, a ourney thatculminates in the upward ascent of the philosopher to the vision of the Good and ends with themythical descent of :r into the underworld at the dialogue-s conclusion.;f course, vision or sight as a controlling metaphor is nothing new in Greek literature. We havealready encountered it in Sophoclean tragedy and know that the Greeks registered sight as acommonplace trope for knowledge in their literary and philosophical le(icons. [ 1( ] We have alsoseen the themes the Republic shares with Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos* the will to knowledge, acertain impatience with the constraints of tradition, the insistence on e(posing underlyingpatterns of unity beneath the phenomenal world. 3et the Republic articulates a vision and

transforms the tropics of %visual& discourse in a way that ;edipus only dreamed of and Sophoclesperhaps feared to imagine. Where ;edipus seeks merely to master his own destiny !and perhapsthe destiny of /hebes", #lato-s Republic would reimagine an entire world in order to master thedestiny of mankind. +either oracles nor curses, nor seemingly much else, limit the capaciousnessof the Republic -s theoretical imagination' its vision is breathtaking, not only for its vast scope,but for its utter innovation, its radical break with all previous standards of thought and udgment.In a heroic act of thought, #lato sought to reconstruct his entire political world by graspingpresent structures and relationships in order to represent them in a new and unfamiliar way.[ 11 ] *ut #lato-s efforts involve more than a mere reassembling of the familiar world in a novelway. )or the Republic does not merely—and fancifully—redescribe that world to us. <ather, itrecreates the world as we know it, for the #latonic act of thought is in an important sense an actof creation, and the political theorist is also something of a political craftsman. In a crucial way,#latonic theory does not so much rearrange the old world as invents a new one. Such is theheroic task that the #latonic theoretical imagination sets for itself.#lato e(ercises the creative powers of the theoretical vocation through the device of a foundationplay. After the aporetic discussion of ustice in book B, Socrates must make a new start. 9e









proposes the famous analogy between the city and the soul as a way to capture the truth about ustice. #lato has Socrates cast himself and the company as founders ! oi'ist s " who will watch ustice and in ustice come into being with the growth of their city. /he founding drama assumesthe form of a political %cosmogony& as the founders create and order their successive cities andrank them in an ascending hierarchy, from Glaucon-s primitive %city for pigs& to the callipolis ofbook N./hat final city most perfectly embodies the nature of ustice. omprised of three classes, which

parallel the three corresponding parts of the soul and character types, the best city is ordered onthe principle of %one person, one task.& /his #latonic division of labor reconciles conflictinginterests and conflicting classes' everyone and every class does what he, she, or it is best suitedby nature to do. 4ustice becomes doing one-s own rather than paying one-s debts ! ephalus",helping friends and harming enemies !#olemarchus", or wanting or having more than one ought!/hrasymachus". [ 12 ] All three classes and parts of the soul are thus ordered by ustice incon unction with temperance. In this ordering, the good of each individual and of each class isidentical with the good of the whole. lass relations, far from being antagonistic, arecomplementary and reciprocal. =nder the principle of speciali ation, each class !and individual"contributes its proper share necessary for the successful functioning of the city. /he result is aunified social and political order in which natural ability and social status are reconciled andharmoni ed. ertainly, there is hierarchy in this integrated order' some classes, some obs, andsome souls are indeed understood as more virtuous or valuable than others. 3et all are e2uallynecessary to the ust functioning of the city, no class or individual is demeaned, and in factdifference is cultivated and allowed to flourish. 1oreover, that difference does not turn invidious,and the hierarchy that results in no way entails domination. In addition, advantages and rewardsseem rather evenly distributed' for e(ample, members of the ruling classes have access topolitical power, but they own no private property and hold all in common, while members of theworking class may accumulate fortunes but are e(cluded from the workings of power. /he rightlyordered city, the analogue of the rightly ordered soul, is thus in harmony with itself, andthe Republic shows us how !and why" this order comes into being./his rather schematic, truncated, and celebratory sketch of the ust city-s political architectureand founding vision indicates that the Republic is no mere intellectual e(ercise, but rather thewilled creation of an entirely new political order. /his raises a crucial 2uestion' why does thediscussion of ustice assume the form of a founding and Socrates the identity of a founder orlawgiver ! oi'ist s "? ;ne ready response has to do with the analogous structures of city and souland the comparative ease of discerning ustice in the former as opposed to the latter. ;n thisaccount, the Republic concerns only the ustice of the individual, a reading that finds support inthe initial motivation of the search, as well as in the more pessimistic pronouncements about thepossibility of actually founding the ust regime later in the dialogue !FHCb". *ut that answer is tooeasy, for it fails to recogni e the claim that % ustice can belong to a single man and to a wholecity& !DM e", and so account for the centrality of the foundation play. A better e(planation, to mymind, rests with the inseparability, for the Greeks, of ethics and politics. /he distinction wemoderns might make between the two would have made no sense to #lato, for whom %thegoodness of individuals was closely related to the goodness of the state in which they lived0 thegood life demanded the good society in which to e(press itself and the good society promotedand made possible the good life.& [ 13 ] 3et even this #latonic e(pression of the %organic state& fails

to confront the contending forces within the dialogue that drive #lato to confound the visualvocation of the theorist with the plastic craft of the political founder. A final reason for insistingthat ustice in the individual and ustice in the city are coterminous has to do with #lato-s obviousconcern for the 2uality of public life and his radical criti2ue of Athenian democracy. If we are tobelieve the %Seventh 7etter,& #lato never lost that concern for the politics of his native city, andironically it was precisely that care for public things that turned him toward theory and makes hisphilosophy political philosophy.As this latter remark implies, the Republic comprises a %structure of intentions& or set ofcontrolling political purposes. /he motivation behind its theoretical reformulation is a deepconcern for public life. Although it may be a clich that political theory emerges as a response toa crisis in politics, it is certainly true that without this concern, the Republic would notbe political theory. If #lato indeed wrote the Republic in response to an e(perienced crisis inAthenian democracy, what was the nature of that crisis and why did it re2uire a response of suche(traordinary scope and so radical a nature? /o be sure, #lato was not responding to this or thatdiscrete failure in Athenian law, policy, or institutional arrangements, a failure that could besolved by other, less radical means. <ather, the Republic bears witness to a state of systematic







distortion in the entire Athenian polity, a disorder in the fundamental structures, meanings, andpurposes of the city, which, in #lato-s estimation, calls forth from the theorist a distinctlytheoretical response. As #lato diagnoses it, systematic disorder re2uires an e2ually systematicreordering of a polity-s most fundamental principles.#lato-s politics, then, are foundational, because his theoretical vision is foundationalist' nothingless than the complete reform of both soul and city, self and order, according to the dictates of anabsolutist epistemology will suffice !that #lato has Socrates give up political reform in favor of the

individual goodness of the philosopher at the end of book H in no way diminishes the #latonic willto order, but rather indicates the frailty and imperfection of the human world". /he presentationof soul and city as analogues, then, and their subse2uent reordering according to the form of theGood, is more than an aesthetic device that confers a certain level of satisfying symmetry to theconstruction !although it is that too". <ather, that presentation and reordering are driven bycurrents that run deep within the book !and perhaps within #lato himself"' the almost obsessiveimpulse to place the unruly, disorderly, and disturbing matters of politics beyond contest andcontestability. )or these reasons, the Republic necessarily works from the ground up./he Republic that has emerged so far is a work of heroic and critical theory. It is heroic becauseof the immensity and impossibility of its task. It is critical because its means of e(planation andits standards of evaluation cohere in a single concept' to e(plain the systematic disorder of apolity is, in #latonic terms, also to udge that order from a critical vantage point. :(planation and

udgment are necessarily %total,& and the #latonic theoretical criti2ue is radical' #lato goes to theroot of things. /here is no piecemeal social engineering here, but rather the radicaltransformation of the foundations of the social and psychic totality. As an act of radical theory,the Republic reimagines that totality0 as an act of radical politics, the Republic replaces it withthe creation of its own theoretical labors. #lato does not merely offer a new vision or version ofthe world0 he would transform the world itself and in that transformation %validate& his theory.+owhere does #lato suggest that theory ought to yield the role of arbiter to the facts of theworld' if the theory does not conform to the facts, then the conclusion we must draw !certainlythe one #lato draws" is that the fault lies in our world, not in our theory. %Is our theory any theless true,& asks Socrates, %if a state so organi ed should not actually be founded?& !ENCe". ;nthis telling, #latonic theory is both critical and radical, and the acts of the #latonic theoreticalimagination are acts of radical politics. #lato barely leaves implicit what 1ar( would later makee(plicit in his eleventh thesis on )euerbach' %/he philosophers have only interpreted the world invarious ways0 the point, however, is to change it.& [ 1 ]

/he political dimensions of the Republic are hardly e(hausted by this deliberately anachronistic,although I think rather telling, mapping of 1ar(-s revolutionary rhetoric onto #lato. /here isanother, considerably less obvious, way in which the Republic intends a politics./he Republic described thus far has been a te(t with theoretical designs on the political world.*ut perhaps the Republic has other designs in other directions as well. 9ere, I wish to mentionbriefly what I shall later develop in more detail. I want to suggest that the Republic comprises acomple( set of strategies with political designs on its readers. At the level of its rhetoric andthrough its te(tual practice, the Republic deploys various and subtle strategies of persuasion'through the choice of its images and metaphors and in the tone, te(ture, and shades of meaningit gives words, the dialogue aims to draw us in and on, to bring us up short, to start our thinkinganew, or to convince us of an argument we do not really believe. A book of diverse moods, the

dialogue is now hopeful, now resigned, both confident and doubtful, at once conciliatory andcombative, first comic, then tragic. A book of many rhetorical devices, the Republic deploys themto keep its readers off balance' we feel by turns provoked, seduced, repulsed, persuaded, orincited, but certainly never bored or disinterested. 4udged in terms of communicative rationality,the Republic deploys an array of strategies and tactics meant to bring about perlocutionary effects—that is, effects of power—even as it states its illocutionary intent, its disavowal of power. *utbefore I pursue a reading of the Republic as a comple( set of rhetorical !and political" strategies, Ishould pause to take stock of my present position, survey the terrain I have covered, and chartthe ne(t stage of the ourney.

• • •/he Republic considered so far, is, while critical and activist, also monolithic, unified, andhierarchical, a paradigmatic global discourse that values the #latonic virtues of order, harmony,and stability over the Athenian—and democratic—political virtues of contest, struggle, and liberty.3et this gloss on the Republic hardly does ustice to so comple(, and at times contradictory, awork. 5espite its smooth fa6ade, the Republic remains an ambivalent book, no less fragmented





by internal tensions, ambiguities, and parado(es than the tragedy it re ects. It is now time toconfront these fragments, to tease out of #lato a theory !and a politics" less total, less singular inform and less sure of itself than my reading has so far indicated. #arado(ical and disturbing bookthat it is, perhaps we should not be too surprised to learn that the Republic struggles against itsown unitary, hierarchical, and, if I am right, ultimately disciplinary account of selves, citi ens, andsociety. It is to that internally subversive narrative—as a counterte(t that interrogates andchallenges the established authority of #latonic philosophy—that I now turn.

/he dialogue form of the Republic comprises one challenge to the book-s unitary narrative, achallenge that pushes back and against its imposing theoretical mass to open up cracks andfissures in an otherwise smooth and seamless surface. Written as a dialogue, the Republic isphilosophy, although its form is in an important sense dramatic, not discursive. As such, #lato-swork contains not one, but many, voices. While Socrates has the largest part in the dialogue,other speakers play important, even necessary, roles. /en characters comprise the castassembled in the house of ephalus, and of these, seven speak, some at length, others 2uitebriefly. /his polyphonic form lends the Republic a certain comple( multidimensionality andindeterminacy uncharacteristic of foundationalist philosophy' while several characters speak,#lato—as author!ity"—remains anonymous. /his is especially true of book B !although not uni2ueto it", where #lato represents a plurality of positions, viewpoints, and arguments, all e(pressedthrough the responsiveness of dialectical interactions. 5ialogue thus offers an open$ended,ongoing discussion, rather than an authoritative pronouncement, proclamation, or prepackagedtruth. As #aul )riedlTnder has ustly remarked, %/he dialogue is the only form of book thatsuspends the book form itself.& [ 1! ] 1oreover, by presenting multiple positions, and so multiplepoints of possible engagement, dialogue forces the reader %to enter critically and actively into thegive and take& of the debate. [ 1$ ] And, as we shall see, the challenges put to Socrates in book Brecur periodically throughout the Republic. 5ialogue thus asks the reader to take sides and make

udgments, something a global theory or treatise is structurally incapable of doing. 3et mycharacteri ation of the Republic -s dialogue form begs an important 2uestion' how can one ustlyconsider a book a dialogue in which most characters remain silent and Socrates does all thetalking? 1ust we not look to other—less obvious, but still subversive—structures inthe Republic to make #lato speak against himself?;ne such structure upon which the Republic relies is the form of tragic elenchus. /his pointbecomes most obvious when one compares a play like Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos to a Socraticconversation. Sophoclean drama, like the Socratic dialogue that followed it, charts the course ofconfidently asserted claims that further developments and subse2uent 2uestioning prove wrong.;edipus resembles a character in a dialogue who, blind to the dimensions of his decidedly self$serving beliefs, discovers that his grasp of, and control over, practical problems is irreversiblylost. As does the outcome of the play, individual scenes make this clear—he misinterpretsoracles, misunderstands 4ocasta, and falsely accuses both reon and /iresias. ;edipus-s 2uestand the entire structure of action in fact parallel the structure of a Socratic elenchus. /he king-scertain belief that he knows who he is, who his parents are, and with whom he lives ispermanently subverted. 9ere, drama most clearly reveals its influence on Socratic philosophicalin2uiry' the elenchic cross$e(amination that leads to ;edipus-s discovery is not merely part of thedrama, it is the whole of it, both the structure of the action and the substance of the plot. [ 1%]

Again, book B of the Republic proves instructive. /he dialogue opens with a Socratic cross$

e(amination of three characters' ephalus, #olemarchus, and /hrasymachus. :ach conversation,however, plays a variation on the classical theme of tragic elenchus. Altthough ephaluswithdraws from the conversation before philosophy can affect him !a withdrawal that short$circuits the cross$e(amination", the subse2uent debate with the spirited #olemarchus dramati esan e(emplary Socratic performance. Socrates successfully refutes the traditional definition of

ustice as helping friends and harming enemies, persuading #olemarchus to oin him as an ally inthe further search for ustice. /hrasymachus, too, suffers defeat, but, like alliclesin Gorgias, and despite his blush of shame, answers merely to please the company, not from theconviction that ustice is indeed more profitable than in ustice. [ 1& ] As the three divergentresponses of indifference, genuine conviction, and hostile denial indicate, Socratic elenchus—thecentral structural component of the dialogue—intends, although not always successfully, to effecta reversal at the level of both belief and action./he force of the dialogue form, then, lies in its warning about the dangers inherent in all searchesfor a single or unitary form of truth. 5ramatic dialogue, with its portrayal of diverse characters,motivations, and points of view, is relentlessly multivocal, even multiperspectival, andheterogeneous. Against the singularity and simplicity of the pure #latonic )orm, dialogue—











following tragedy—%continually displays to us the irreducible richness of human value, thecomple(ity and indeterminacy of the lived practical situation.& [ 1' ] Socratic dialogue-s primaryresponsibility lies with the particular individual-s response to an immediate and comple( ethicalsituation, rather than with general, abstract, or determinate accounts that simplify or otherwisereduce an unavoidably ironic and contradictory world. Socratic elenchus warns against suchreductionism in thought and action by demonstrating the dangers of clinging to an overly narrowand e(cessively rigid conception of oneself and one-s world. [ 2( ]

*ut Socratic elenchus is not ust at work in this or that e(change between Socrates and hishapless interlocutor. As in tragedy, elenchus also defines the larger dramatic structure or form ofthe Republic. *y orm, I mean not only drama, dialogue, or treatise as a characteristic literarygenre, but the architecture of a work-s composition, the arrangement of its formal elements,including the structural articulation of both the action and the argument. /his elenchic structureposes a further challenge to the book-s intended theoretical unity, for the Republic disturbse(pectations and sensibilities by reversing the direction of travel of its own narrative. [ 21 ] 7ike theune(pected reversal of action in Oedipus Tyrannos, and like Socrates- reversal of udgment onthe great Athenian statesmen in Gorgias, the Republic une(pectedly changes course. Socratesliterally reverses his initial direction of travel, up from and out of the #iraeus, to go back down tothe harbor for an all$night festival. /he peripetetic reversal of this opening scene certainly reflectsthrough dramatic means the change of mind so essential to a successful Socratic elenchus. Italso anticipates the %turning around,& subse2uent enlightenment, and grudging descent back intothe shadows central to the parable of the cave and the dialectical education of the philosopher./hat education is itself structured by a reversal, for a moral understanding of the world—anunderstanding that results in a ust citi en—re2uires more than the dialectical sharpening of wits./he %turning around& that describes the philosopher-s education reflects a change of heart, ametaphorical reorientation or reversal of one-s life. Such reversal also structures the all$consuming task of the interlocutors, provides the Republic with a tragic sense of loss, andbalances the central, hopeful ascent to the )orms with a concluding descent' after the long ande(hausting upward ourney that culminates in the polis of the idea, the ideal city proves as fragileand vulnerable as any finite human life. +o sooner is the city in words completed than it beginsto unravel in a downward spiral of decay and decomposition. )rom the optimism of books F to N,where philosophers sought to remake the world in the image of the transcendent idea,the Republic gives way to the pessimism of book H, where Socrates hopes that at least the polis

of the idea could be reali ed in the soul of the individual !FHCb". /hese reversals at the level ofthe dialogue-s dramatic structure subvert even the most confidently self$contained theoreticalaccount, alerting us to its attendant insufficiencies and inconsistencies./he Republic unpredictably changes its course to violate its own assumptions, pre udices, ande(pectations, not only by means of reversal but also through the use of interruptions, parado(,and the u(taposition of opposites. A series of interruptions, false closures, and new beginningsdisrupts the forward !and upward" movement of the Republic -s narrative, further subverting the

%tyranny& of its foundational discourse with discrete acts of resistance directed against any finalclosure. *ook B ends in typical and well$known Socratic confusion, so that many have considered

%/hrasymachus& a self$contained e(ample of the early and aporetic type of dialogue in whichSocrates himself admits ignorance !DFEc". [ 22 ] 3et while parallels to this inconclusive conclusionabound in the #latonic corpus, no other dialogue offers anything like the beginning of book C,

where Socrates reopens the problem of ustice. /he aporetic closure of book B thus provesdeceptive and disruptive' against our e(pectations !and against those of Socrates", Glaucon andAdeimantus force Socrates to renew the argument. [ 23 ] /he dialogue begins anew. Still othere(amples of inconclusion in a dialogue that refuses to conclude indicate the Republic -s resistanceto its own impulse toward theoretical closure. )irst, there is Adeimantus-s challenge to Socrates-description of the guardian class at the beginning of book E, when he asks' %What would you sayin your defense, Socrates, if someone were to say you don-t make these men very happy?&!EBHa" Adeimantus is satisfied with Socrates- defense, but others, either inside or outside thedialogue, may not be. #erhaps this overture, and others like it in the dialogue, are invitations tointerrupt the flow of Socratic discourse from the outside and so interrogate its ade2uacy, as dothe interlocutors from the inside. ;r consider the digressionary nature of the Republic -s centralbooks, books that introduce the most controversial themes in the dialogue. If Socrates had hisway, that conversation would never have occurred. )or once Socrates has completed founding the

%city in words,& he turns, at the start of book F, to discuss the types of cities and characters thatare inferior to the best regime and lack its degree of perfection. /his would seem the ne(t step ina logical argument, but Socrates is interrupted in mid$sentence by #olemarchus, who asksAdeimantus' %Shall we let him go on, or what?& !EEHb" With this interruption, #lato has Socrates













introduce the three waves of parado( that we most associate with the city of the idea' thee2uality of the se(es, the community of women and children, and rule by philosopher$kings. It isnot until the beginning of book that the narrative resumes its interrupted course, when it takesup, once again, the cycle of political decay and decline./his series of interruptions fragments the totality of the book-s theoretical discourse, forcing thereader to consider a Republic of one book !the aporetic %/hrasymachus&", three books !B D", si(books !B E, H", and finally of ten books. *ut how complete, one may ask, is a Republic of ten

books, given repeated interruptions in which #lato has radically 2ualified a founding discoursethat could easily be self$content and self$contained? [ 2 ] It is not merely the aporetic book B thatresists closure. /he entire Republic is structured by a series of interruptions, false closures, andreopened or contested arguments./he Republic -s deployment of startling oppositions and parado(ical contradictions further disturbsits apparently settled order and mar!k"s an apparently flawless and seamless te(t./he Republic con oins opposites in uneasy and parado(ical tension' it u(taposes the novel andinnovative to the ancient and traditional, it oins poetry to philosophy, and suggests that usticere2uires an essential e2uality between men and women, the community of women and children,and the unity of political power and theoretical knowledge. /his last parado(—the third wave thatthreatens to engulf Socrates—unites power and knowledge and indicates a parado( central notonly to the Republic but to the vocation and phrase %political theory& itself. ;n one hand, politics

concerns the vicissitudes of human affairs in the city and has to do with particularities of timeand place, the indeterminacy and unpredictability of chance in human action and decision0 inshort, with all that is mutable, changeable, and fluid. /heory, on the other hand, concerns thefi(ed, the necessary, the eternal and unchanging order of the cosmos, those things that e(ist bynature and admit of certainty as independent ob ects of contemplation. %#olitical theory& thus

oins two separate realms of knowledge and its ob ects and two distinct sensibilities or styles. Inthe /icomachean Ethics, Aristotle e(presses his own astonishment at the attempted unification ofpolitics and theory when he remarks that only an uneducated man would e(pect the sameamount of precision from the human sciences as from the theoretical sciences. *y oining twoactivities and modes of knowing traditionally in opposition to each other in the parado(ical unityof philosophy and politics, the Republic invites its readers to 2uestion now$established categoriesand divisions as each term in the phrase %political theory& interrogates its counterpart. 9ere isone more e(ample of elenchus at work in the Republic./he architecture of the Republic presents another parado(, different from, although related to,the parado( of %political theory& I have ust mentioned. In chapter D, I argued that the dramaticform or structure of a play often reflected its substantive teachings. )or e(ample, inSophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos, form rearticulates content in the comple( interplay andinterpenetration of language, action, and plot. /he ambiguity of the play-s language !its duality"reflects the ambiguity of ;edipus-s actions and self. /hus the parado(es of idiom and speech thatcharacteri e the language of the play also characteri e ;edipus. /he play unfolds on two distinctand separate levels of meaning, until the final revelation unites word with deed, character withfate, and ;edipus with himself. /he tensions and ambiguities—of action, knowledge, and meaning—lived by ;edipus are thus reflected in the formal structure and language of the play.Something similar happens in a Socratic dialogue. Socratic 2uestion$and$answer is the mostappropriate form for imparting the substantive philosophical teaching that true knowledge is

rooted in an awareness of one-s ignorance. Socratic wisdom recogni es itself to be partial, one$sided, incomplete, and so in need of others' the dialogue form recogni es these deficiencies asthe necessary conditions for the collaborative pursuit of wisdom. /he Socratic search is thus acollective endeavor, and Socratic philosophy an ongoing activity of debate and deliberation, ofvision and revision. Since the dialogue form also invites interlocution, as auditors we arewelcomed into the human community of the dialogue and encouraged to e(plore its substantivearguments and conclusions for ourselves. Socrates- teaching about wisdom-s reliance onignorance is thus reiterated by the partial, incomplete, and fragmentary character of the humanconversation and 2uest the dialogue embodies, represents, and at its best attempts to mitigate./he parallel relationship between philosophical substance and dramatic structure thatcharacteri es Socratic dialogue does not, however, ade2uately describethe Republic. /he Republic -s dramatic form does not so much reflect its e(plicit teaching as

subvert it. Where the tensions and ambiguities of form reflect the tensions and ambiguities ofcontent in Sophoclean drama and Socratic philosophy, the architecture of the Republic presents aparado( of its own. /here is a dis unction or dissonance, if not a contradiction,between "hat Socrates and the interlocutors say, and the "ay they say it. /he practice of





Socratic philosophy, which displays ustice in the activity of the search for it, subtly subverts thesubstantive definition achieved by that practice. I want to conclude this present discussion bysuggesting one last way in which the dramatic form of the dialogue struggles againstthe Republic -s pretensions to foundationalist theory./his struggle points to an ambiguity, if not an outright opposition, between the kind of philosophySocrates and the interlocutors practice in the dialogue and the kind of philosophy they come torecommend through the dialogue. [ 2! ] /he familiar interpretation evaluates the Republic as

radically discontinuous with the Socratic philosophy of the Apology . [ 2$ ] /his Republic proffers asrationalist construct an ideal city intended to be embodied in the world. ;b ective knowledge of

ustice, apprehensible by properly initiated and trained philosophers, is possible given favorablecircumstances and a few citi ens with suitably philosophical inclinations. /he Republic is a work ofutopian philosophy that manifests the will to power of the philosopher who would remake societyin the image of the transcendent idea. #lato-s radical reform of the social order re2uires the

udicious use of philosophical techni2ue on political matter in order to banish art and poetry,institute communism, enforce strict educational practices, and pacify the inhabitants with acalculated lie. /he result is a harmonious and well$ordered polis, in which the rational part rulesthe whole as it does in the well$ordered soul. 7ess generously, the society of the Republic is, touse Oarl #opper-s phrase, a closed one. In the closed society of the Republic -s best regime,philosophy tends toward tyranny and the dogmatic closure of the mind one associates with thepossession of truth, rather than with the open and pious 2uest for wisdom, knowledge, and

ustice.*ut I have pointed to ample evidence that the Republic is, if not consistent with Socrates- self$interpretation in the Apology or Gorgias, certainly more ambivalent and ambiguous than a

%#latonic& reading allows. Its dramatic form as dialogue and structured elenchus and the patternsof reversal, interruption, and parado( are all tactics and strategies the dialogue deploys tofragment the global theoretical !and political" totality Socrates constructs, tactics and strategiesthat resist the disciplinary closure we most associate with #lato-s Republic. In these terms,the Republic -s counterte(t appro(imates an aporetic dialogue, and philosophy the open$ended2uest for knowledge, wisdom, and ustice, unpretentious and conscious of its mortal limits./his Republic, no less than the early %Socratic& dialogues, obeys the 5elphic ma(ims %Onowthyself& and %+othing in e(cess.& Socrates and his partners search for the nature of ustice, butthey never find it. /hey do, however, embody it in the ust community they create amongthemselves during their search. 4ustice, like the other virtues, may not prove definable, nor mayabsolute knowledge of it be possessed, but it can be practiced. /he Republic thus illustrates

ustice indirectly in the action of the 2uest. /he activity of philosophical speech that theinterlocutors undertake in the dialogue, rather than any definitive or final possession ofknowledge, is ustice.;n this %aporetic& reading, the Republic neither presents a plan for political action nor constructsan ideal utopia to be reali ed in the world. /he practice of Socratic philosophy demonstrates,rather, the impossibility !and undesirability" of such plans and constructions. *y showing theinterlocutors !and readers" the limits of philosophical discourse in the uncompleted task ofdefining ustice, Socrates also shows us its limited application to politics. /he Republic issues acall, not for the radical transformation of the social and political order administered by aphilosophical elite, but for the moral reform of the individual in its call to practice philosophy.

[ 2%] Such a reading also finds its ustification in the pessimism of book H, where Glaucon despairsof the possibility of ever founding a ust city' %If this Kharmony of the soulL is his deepestconcern, he will not willingly become involved in politics& !FHCa", for the city they have ustfounded in words %e(ists nowhere on earth& !FHCb". Socrates then 2ualifies this statement byadding' %3et perhaps there is a pattern for this laid up in heaven for the man who wants toobserve it and, holding it in his sight, to found this city within himself K heaton 'atoi'i-ein L. Itmakes no difference whether it e(ists now or ever will. It is in the life of this city that he wouldbe active and in no other& !FHCb". If the Republic can be said to be %foundational& in anymeaningful sense, that foundation is now restricted to the %inner polity& within the ust individual./hat ustice is not possible in the city, but only in the soul of the individual is further indicated inthe myth of :r, which concludes the dialogue. Given a choice between a life of ambition and thatof an ordinary citi en who minds his own business, the soul of ;dysseus chose the latter life,saying that had he been given first choice rather than last, he would not have chosen differently!MCRc".[ 2& ] With these pronouncements, it seems that philosophy has bid farewell to the heroicimpulses that structured the earlier books and taken leave of politics altogether.











:ach conception of philosophy also implies a corresponding form of political community and acorresponding relationship between them. /he first community, constructed in speech bySocrates with the help of the assembled company, is an ordered hierarchy of three classes, whichcorresponds to the appetitive, spirited, and rational parts of the soul. In this community, led bythe philosopher$kings, the rulers do not so much respond to the individual needs of their sub ectsas create and limit those needs through various manipulative mechanisms' the myth of themetals, or %noble lie,& and poetic and gymnastic education. <ather than being grounded in

dialogue, this community is remarkably silent and philosophy the privileged and private activityof a few, which consists of the pursuit of a pristine knowledge purged of the particularities ofthose individuals who pursue it. Such knowledge entitles the philosopher to rule the city as acaptain rules a ship' with absolute authority./he second community, composed of the interlocutors and led by Socrates is, if not democratic,certainly not authoritarian. It relies on the art of dialogue and debate, and resembles thedeliberative community Socrates sought to establish as a paradigm for politics in Gorgias .[ 2' ] Socrates here leads the philosophical community he has helped establish, ever responsive tothe particular needs of his partners in conversation. 9e originally let himself be persuaded by#olemarchus to return to the #iraeus, and it is evident that he treats each interlocutor differentlyaccording to differences in character. At the end of book F, when Socrates is about to begin anaccount of the best regime-s decline, he responds courageously to the spirited entreaties ofGlaucon and #olemarchus to render a full account of the philosopher-s education and so of

ustice. In the give$and$take of dialogue, the community is %ruled& as much by the collectivity ofinterlocutors as it is by Socrates. In that collectivity, individual needs, viewpoints, andcharacteristics are honored as irreplaceable parts of a larger whole' /hrasymachus-s passion forpower is ust as necessary to the community of the dialogue as Glaucon-s and Adeimantus-spassion for ustice.Such ambiguities and oppositions concerning the nature of philosophy and its relation to politicscomplicate any interpretation that understands the Republic as either a utopian ideal or an anti$utopia intended as a criti2ue of idealism. [ 3( ] /o maintain that it is simply one or the other meansto mistake a part for the whole, that is, to do what ;edipus did when he %solved& the riddle of theSphin(, what Gorgias did when he claimed for the craft of rhetoric more than was its due, andwhat the interlocutors in book B of the Republic do when they claim a partial and self$servingunderstanding of ustice to be the whole of it. *ut the Republic is neither simply a utopia nor ananti$utopia. +or does it ultimately resolve its contending parts into a grand synthesis thatcontravenes the dialectical tensions that drive it. /o think that it does ignores the dialogue-swarning against the dangers of attaining a single or unitary account of anything, about gainingunity, consistency, coherency, and order at the e(pense of individuality, particularity, anddiversity. It also fails to account for the varied strategies by which the dialogue struggles againstits drive toward final narrative closure.5espite the fact that the dialogue internally subverts its own foundationalist impulses,the Republic does make e(plicit what remained largely implicit in Gorgias. #lato-s repudiation ofSocrates and Socratic political philosophy—his triumphant announcement of political knowledgebeyond contest—indicates that however useful radical philosophical 2uestioning may be, it doesreach a point of diminishing returns. Socratic philosophy, or so #lato indicates in the Republic, isunable to provide the foundations necessary to secure a stable political community. riticism is

certainly necessary, but so too are the visions of unity, wholeness, and harmony that make itpossible and that the Republic provides. /he Republic is thus a perfect e(ample of what )oucaultterms a global theoretical discourse. In its diagnosis of political problems in systemic andstructural terms, in its elaboration of an analogy between city and soul, in its creation of a centerand a hierarchy, and in its derivation of a comprehensive theoretical and political order from anepistemological absolute, the Republic indeed assumes global aims and proportions. +one of thismeans that #lato escapes the contradictions of political and theoretical foundings. I have beenarguing that the dialogue subverts its own tendency toward such theori ing and the disciplinaryregime that accompanies it. As necessary as it is to think in both systemic or structural termsand provide visions of unity, reconciliation, and fulfillment, such terms and visions tend to turninto closed systems. :ven the most inclusive of systems e(cludes what necessarily falls outsideor below the threshold of its cognition, forecloses some aspects of the world even as it disclosesothers, and enslaves the sub ects it intends to liberate. )rom one perspective,the Republic seems to offer ust such an inclusive, self$confident, and self$contained vision of thewhole. )rom another—simultaneous—perspective, it invites its readers to wonder if Socrates







would not be the first banished from the ideal city, Socratic philosophy purged from it along withpoetry, and philosophical discussions of ustice !like the one in the Republic " outlawed./he Republic is neither simply continuous nor discontinuous with the Socrates of the earlydialogues. Although it presents the activities of Socrates familiar from those dialogues, it alsocontains an account of philosophers that does not describe Socrates himself. /wo modes ofphilosophy and two models of political community contend with one another for authority inthe Republic. /o the e(tent that it is cast in the form of a dialogue in which these two opposing

conceptions interrogate each other, the Republic is an e(tension of Socratic philosophy. *ut to thee(tent that the Republic agrees with Socrates- Athenian accusers and 2uestions the practice ofSocratic 2uestioning, [ 31 ] re ects his ironic stance for an altogether unironic conclusion, andentertains the idea that ob ective knowledge of the Good is possible and perhaps necessary forestablishing a well$ordered city and soul, the Republic betrays both the practice and the intentionof a Socratic philosophy based on the ironic knowledge of ignorance./hese ambivalences and oppositions, the contending forces and competing claims that struggleagainst each other, leave us with no easy conclusion about the kind of theory and politicsthe Republic recommends. /o reduce the Republic to an %aporetic& dialogue means to miss #lato-swarning !already registered in Gorgias " about the insufficiencies inherent in %pure& Socraticphilosophy, and to ignore his caution against naively raising %dialogue& to a cult. /o reduce it to a

%dogmatic& dialogue ignores Socrates- warning about the tyrannical closure of mind to which even

the best$intentioned intellects—and theories—fall prey. /he Republic is thus a paradigm, but notwithout its own internal tensions and ambiguities, which subtly disrupt the settled order thedialogue so powerfully pro ects. Such tensions and ambiguities recall the ambiguous status ofSophocles- paradigmatic hero, ;edipus. 7ike ;edipus, the Republic is both noble e(emplar andob ect lesson, perhaps the greatest e(ample of a global theoretical discourse and the greatestcriticism of such globali ed thinking, one of the finest e(amples of a systematic order ofknowledge and a negation of the possibility of such an order. [ 32 ] I do not think, however, thatthe Republic successfully resolves the tensions, ambiguities, and ambivalences that mark itstheoretical vision and te(tual practice. In its own terms, the Republic must be udged a failure'#lato-s dialogue wavers between two contending and compelling modes of theory !or philosophy"and models of politics. Ambivalent book that it is, we are left contemplating a global theoreticaldiscourse of epic proportions, the singular totality of which is fragmented by multiple points ofview, fresh starts and false closures, reversals, interruptions, and tragic disappointments. 3et likethe tragedy that it simultaneously critici es and absorbs, the Republic asks us to render a

udgment about its achievements and failures, a udgment it has helped educate its readers tomake./he tensions and ambiguities that pervade the Republic have enabled the search for thoseinternal subversions that fragment the dialogue. I have argued that the Republic is as muchphilosophical fragment as self$contained theoretical totality. /hat fragmentation has allowed meto turn the te(t against itself for the contemporary purpose of discovering that within its globaldiscourse, the Republic deploys a variety of te(tual strategies and practices that struggle withand against totality in both theory and society. Against the systematic order of its identitariandiscourse and the disciplinary regime it simultaneously creates and legitimates, the dialoguemounts something like a counterattack. /he interruptions, reversals, and parado(es thatpunctuate the Republic and disrupt the even flow and smooth functioning of its orderly narrative

!and its pro ected political order" work like the strategies and tactics of those )oucauldiangenealogies that disturb the hegemonic claims of globali ing discourse in the struggle against theforms of discipline such discourse engenders. Within and against its own orderly body of theory,the Republic gives subversive e(pression to disruptive e(periences, knowledges, and selves thatit would otherwise suppress or banish, much as genealogies e(cavate the local, discontinuous,dis2ualified, and illegitimate knowledges that have been buried and disguised within and beneathformal systems of knowledge. What I have been calling the Republic -s counterte(t—a %te(t& thatis heterogeneous, dispersed, discontinuous, and fragmentary—resists the dialogue-s unifiednarrative and so the closure that mar!k"s all theoretical and political foundations. /hatthe Republic contains such a fragmentary counterte(t does not mean, however, that the dialogueis fragmented. /he fragmentary character of the book is mediated by a thematic coherence!whether one reads the Republic as the answer to, or a continued search for, the solution to theproblems generated by politics, ustice is the common theme" that makes the book a whole, evenas it subverts its own forcefully pro ected theoretical totality.*ut strategies of disruption, fragmentation, and disturbance necessarily re2uire a %center&against which to push, a suitable amount of law and order to make disturbing the peace







worthwhile, a foundation stable and permanent enough to withstand seismic assault. /hatfoundation is, of course, the philosopher-s knowledge of the Good, a knowledge that enables a

ust ordering of the city. Such knowledge is in an important sense independent of power, interest,passion, and even argumentation—it is a knowledge beyond the contest of politics—and sobeyond speech. /he #latonic desire to escape politics, to settle once and for all the struggle andcontest over meanings cultural, social, and theoretical, has always been a dream of criticaltheory. Since its inception, critical theory has sought a way to fi( power-s limit through an appeal

to reason in order to distinguish between ust and un ust regimes, between legitimate andillegitimate e(ercises of power. [ 33 ] /hat desire is no less present and operational in 9abermas-slatest iteration of the )rankfurt legacy. [ 3 ] 7ike the #latonic philosopher in the presence of the)orms, the sub ects of communicative reason seek to be wholly transparent to themselves and toothers, perfectly present in a conte(t of communication the fundamental !and unperceived" ironyof which is that its logic leads beyond speech to silence. ritical theory-s temptation totransparency flees politics !and its own critical vocation" by failing to acknowledge that itslinguistic grounds are also sub ect to contestation, that even the claims of reason concealstrategies and mechanisms of power—are political. #latonic dialogue alerts its readers to theneed for, and the inade2uacy of, its own theoretical foundations, so that even a %closed& book likethe Republic keeps on talking. *y contrast, critical theory tires of its labor and seeks a finalresting spot beyond speech. It thus contravenes its own prohibition of silence. *ut there is afurther irony here' the almost impenetrable discursive form of 9abermas-s critical theoryunwittingly works against, rather than with, the theory-s communicative intent. What are we tomake of a theory founded, and grounded, in speech that positively discourages the give$and$takeof moral communication and debate? Would not a form less willfully obtuse, one more akin todialogue, prove more appropriate to a theory of communicative action purporting to bedemocratic?Although I shall let these criticisms stand, I do not want to dismiss 9abermas-s pro ect of arationally grounded politics too readily. After all, the Republic is sometimes silent about its ownorigins, and Socrates, too, often seems ready to discourse at length rather than pursue aconversation. 1oreover, what I am unwilling to relin2uish in #lato—a standard !or paradigm" thatis useful both for e(plaining and for critici ing systematically distorted social relations—is no lesspresent in the critical theory of 9abermas. *ut what other lessons might critical theory learn from#lato? 9ow might the Republic instruct contemporary theory committed to reason and

enlightened thought today? ;ne way has to do precisely with a theory-s !or theorist-s" relation toits own origins, a point the dialogue at least reveals to its readers, even if it does not in fact get it2uite right. ritical theory would thus leave this staged encounter having learned both theattractions and dangers involved in constructing a self$contained and self$contented discourse.Such theory would also recogni e the necessity of providing a critical account of its own activityby treating its theoretical foundations with proper genealogical suspicion, and in this mannerkeep the dialogue it seeks to establish alive. /he Republic aids in the present task of imagining apostfoundationalist theoretical sensibility by balancing the 2uest for an orderly theoreticalaccount of politics with the drive to subvert, interrupt, and interrogate all such comprehensive,

%global& orders. #lato-s dialogue helps articulate a theoretical sensibility that both founds andconfounds the Western theoretical imagination and points toward an agonistic ethos thatintroduces heterogeneity, difference, and contest into our theoretical visions, while conservingthose aspects of order—rule, authority, stability—as elements of a center against which tostruggle. *ecause the dialogue !con"founds the theoretical imagination in this way, it isparticularly useful for resisting the polari ed terms of the present contest over the meaning oftheory, for charting an alternative route through that unstable terrain. /he usefulness ofthe Republic for contemporary theory lies precisely in its ability to think such apparentlyintractable contradictions in tension, to embody the very dilemmas it seeks to solve, to give voiceto the very conflicts it would erase.)or these reasons, the Republic proves instructive as a model for contemporary theoreticalcriti2ue, for the establishment of a %te(t& in tension with its margins provides the dialogue with aposition from which to transform the %norms and forms& both of its inherited culture and of itsown founding principles. /hat transformative capacity in the Republic is an instance of what Ihave been calling immanent criti2ue. /wo e(amples, one from tragedy, the other from Socraticdialogue, should prove sufficient to recall the conte(t for this claim. A tragedy likeSophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos could 2uestion the present from within the tradition of a publicfestival by u(taposing past and present in a way that would initiate a dialogue among themembers of the citi en$audience and so promote collective self$e(amination. <ooted firmly in theconventions of civic tradition and religious ritual, tragic action nonetheless 2uestioned the order







in which it participated. Although Socratic philosophy was not anchored institutionally in any way,it performed its own critical work in a similar manner. Socrates appealed to such traditionalAthenian values as ustice, courage, temperance, and piety, and at the same time sub ectedthese une(amined meanings to the most severe and critical scrutiny. 7ike tragedy, Socratesthought within and against the Athenian tradition in order to think beyond it. *ut what ofthe Republic@ 5oes not #lato finally and decisively break with all inherited Athenian traditions,especially the poetic? 9ow can I claim that #lato pursues a strategy of immanent criti2ue similar

to the practice of both tragedy and Socratic philosophy when the Republic proposes a form of civiceducation that emphatically re ects the two cornerstones of Athenian paideia —epic and tragicpoetry? ;ne response is that while the Republic re ects poetry, the dialogue itself is a profoundlypoetic work, impossible without the epic and tragic tradition to give it substance, scope, anddefinition. /he Republic positions itself within and against the poetic tradition in order to redefineand transform it. [ 3! ] Second, the Republic is a work of philosophy and philosophical educationthat, as I have indicated, seems to repudiate Socrates, its greatest e(emplar and source ofinspiration. 3et even as it suggests that Socratic elenchus is not enough to secure a stablepolitical community, the Republic is a highly Socratic work by virtue of its dialectical form andself$critical stance' as a criti2ue of Socratic philosophy, it refuses to abandon Socratic philosophy.#latonic philosophy, too—at least in the Republic —thinks with and against Athenian tradition inorder to think beyond it.

• • •I want to end this chapter and prepare for the ne(t by returning to the theme of founding withwhich I began, for #lato-s Republic and Aeschylus-s Oresteia are both %founding& te(ts.7ooking back over these reflections, I am not at all sure that the Republic successfully concealsits will to power—manifest in its global theoretical discourse and the disciplinary politics thatfollow—behind a metaphysical veil of pure knowledge and pristine origins. Indeed, I am not evensure it attempts such a philosophical sleight of hand, at least not in any simplistic way and notwithout making such an operation clear—almost transparent—to the reader. /he interruptions,parado(es, and reversals that mark and mar the te(t invite the reader to 2uestion its foundingconstructions and interrogate its fundamental theoretical assumptions. 5espite the seamlessfa6ade of its smooth surface, the Republic is a dialogue traversed by cracks and fissures, whichprovide critical purchase for the in2uiring and adventuresome reader who remains skeptical of

any author!ity"—te(tual, political, theoretical—constituted by pure forms and revealed essences./he Republic is a surprisingly permeable te(t. A dialogue that produces itself by generatingdiverse and contradictory meanings, it employs multiple strategies to resist the #latonic drivetoward final political and theoretical closure. As the dialogue attempts to establish a psychic andsocial order securely grounded in foundations beyond the reach of political contest andcontestability, that ground begins to shift and move, to fragment and fall away. ;nce stableterrain yields to fractures and fault lines, the depths of which I have here tried to plumb.*ut does this permeability and impermanence mean the dialogue escapes the %parado( offounding&? 5oes not the Republic, too, violate its own precept of ustice precisely at the momentof its origin, a violation it subse2uently conceals in a series of retrospective ustifications,standards, and udgments that amount to a pernicious politics of forgetting? [ 3$ ] After all, is notthe authority of the Republic derived from the philosopher-s incontestable vision of the good, and

is that authority—and the controversial social arrangements that support it—not precisely whatthe dialogue seeks to establish? 7ike all acts of foundation, the Republic -s is asupremely political act—an act of power—in spite of its sometime denials and evasions to thecontrary. I say sometimes because #lato-s dialogue is distinct !although not uni2ue" for facingthat beginning s2uarely and recogni ing clearly—almost brutally—the violent e(cesses at its ownorigin. /he Republic thereby acknowledges its reliance upon the violence and e(clusion thatattend every founding. We have only to recall the acts of %in ustice& at the origin of the ust city'the principle that the happiness of the guardians is secondary to the health of the whole, theradical purge of poetry, the forced e(ile of all those over ten years of age, the %noble lie& and theprogram of eugenics that accompanies it. 1oreover, the dialogue reveals its own deployment ofstrategies and rhetorical devices that conceal the rifts they necessarily open. onsider themeaning of a book that e(coriates mimetic representation, yet itself contains ust such animitation0 or the fact that Socrates himself would not be allowed to practice philosophy in the cityhe founds0 or, finally, the parado( of a te(t that radically re ects poetry yet is itself a poetic work.9ow to appropriate such ambiguities, inconsistencies, and ambivalences is a substantial burdenof this chapter.







the dating of the dialogues, which is ine(act in any case and cannot determine an interpretation, than with the contending andcontradictory impulses that inhabit the dialogue. K*A O L

N. f. Guthrie, Plato, CH , who states that the Republic %is #lato-s full and final answer to the 2uestion in the Gorgias, @how tolive- & ! pBs biBteon,Gorgias EHCd". /he phrase at FRRc, hontina chr tropon - n, occurs in identical format Republic DFCd. K*A OL

. ;n Aeschylus-s use of the cosmogonic myth, see )roma I. Qeitlin, %/he 5ynamics of 1isogyny' 1yth and 1ythmaking inthe Oresteia, & Arethusa BB, B C !Spring )all BHN "' esp. BMC MD. K*A O L

H. /he literature on the Republic is vast. #articularly useful are #aul )riedlTnder, Plato, trans. 9ans 1eyerhoff !+ew 3ork'#antheon *ooks, BHF "0 Werner 4aeger, Paideia* The #deals o Gree' $ulture, vol. C !+ew 3ork' ;(ford =niversity #ress,BHED"0 A. :. /aylor, Plato* The &an and +is (or', Dd ed. !BHCM0 +ew 3ork' 5ial #ress, BHCH"0 Guthrie, Plato= ). 1.

ornford, The ?n"ritten Philosophy and Other Essays ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BHFR" /. 9. Irwin, Plato s&oral Theory !;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHNN"0 1artha +ussbaum, The %ragility o Goodness* 0uc' and Ethics in Gree'0iterature and Philosophy ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH M"0 9ans$Georg Gadamer, Dialogue and Dialectic*Eight +ermeneutical !tudies on Plato, trans. hristopher #. Smith !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH R"0 and

harles Griswold, ed., Platonic (ritings 2 Platonic Readings !+ew 3ork' <outledge, BH ". Among political theorists, seeSheldon Wolin, Politics and ision* $ontinuity and #nnovation in (estern Political Thought !*oston' 7ittle, *rown, BHMB"09annah Arendt, The +uman $ondition ! hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BHF ", and et"een Past and %uture !+ew 3ork'>iking #ress, BHF "0 7eo Strauss, The $ity and &an !+ew 3ork' <and 1c+ally, BHME", 4. #eter :uben, The Tragedy o PoliticalTheory* The Road /ot Ta'en !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR"0 1ary #. +ichols, %/he Republic -s /woAlternatives' #hilosopher$Oings and Socrates,& Political Theory BC, C !1ay BH E"' CFC NE0 and Ale(ander Sesonske, Plato sRepublic* #nterpretation and $riticism !*elmont, alif.' Wadsworth #ublishing, BHMM". K*A O L

BR. /he etymological beginnings of theory and theorist are to be found in the post9omeric vocabulary. /heverb theBrein, originally derived from the noun signifying a spectator ! theBros ", came specifically to mean %to look on,contemplate or observe.& It differs significantly from the 9omeric panoply of %sight& verbs because, as *runo Snell hasremarked, %it does not reflect an attitude or an emotion linked with sight, nor the viewing of a particular ob ect' instead itrepresents an intensification of the normal and essential function of the eyes& !Snell, The Discovery o the &ind* The Gree'Origins o European Thought, trans. /. G. <osenmeyer K ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BHFDL, p. E". TheBrein thusemphasi es the ob ect seen and the intensity of the viewer-s e(periences rather than the %palpable aspects, the e(ternal2ualifications, of the act of seeing& !ibid.". /he 9omeric attributes of manner do not cling to this verb, which in the classicalperiod meant %to contemplate.& /heory thus comes to signify mental activity, not the function of the eyes, although #lato usesthe e(pression %to see with the mind-s eye& ! Republic F Cc" to denote mental vision. /he turn away from the 9omericconception of vision is both a turn outward, toward the ob ect of perception, and a turn inward, toward the intensity or depthof the e(perience. A theBros was originally a spectator of a sacred event or a public performance, an emissary sent to theoracle at 5elphi, a witness of religious rituals, rites of purification, or the sacred games at ;lympia. /he theBros also traveledto other poleis in an official capacity to observe an event and then returned home to report on what he had witnessed. /heorybecame an activity that entailed watching and observing a spectacle related to things divine and recounting the essentials ofthe witnessed event clearly, accurately, and with discernment. /his means that only those citi ens were sent who could %see&with discrimination. Since theory re2uired embarking upon a ourney to foreign lands, the theorist ac2uired the connotation ofa traveler, someone who had e(perienced the world beyond the parochial confines of the polis and even beyond the 9elleniccivili ational area. /heory subse2uently entailed %seeing with an eye toward learning about different lands and institutions,alien practices and e(periences, distilling and comparing the pattern of things seen while engaged in travel& !4. #eter :uben,

% reatures of a 5ay' /hought and Action in /hucydides,& in Political Theory and Pra)is* /e" Perspectives, ed. /erence *allK1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress, BHNNL, p. DE". /he etymology of theater also bears out a relation to philosophyand theory. /he theater ! theatrBn " is a place for seeing or beholding a spectacle, especially dramatic representations0 it is alsoa place of assembly and a collective noun for hoi theatai, the spectators. /he Greek theatrBn originates in the femininenoun thea, which signifies %see, sight, ga e, look upon, behold admire and contemplate.& )rom it, Greek derived a field ofwords having to do with seeing, sight, and spectacle, e.g, to theama !sight, spectacle, play", h theama !spectacle", and theverb theaomai meaning %to ga e at or behold, to see clearly and with a sense of wonder or admiration.& Theaomai not onlydesignates physical vision ! Rep. DCNa", but mental activity as well, especially in the sense of contemplation or a %vision of themind& ! Rep. F Cc, Phd. Eb". ;n the etymology of thauma,thea, and theBros, see #ierre hantraine, Dictionnaireetymologi>ue de la langue grec>ue !#aris' :ditions Olincksieck, BHNR", pp. ECE CF, EDD, as well as 9 almar )risk, GriechischesEtymologisches ( rterbuch !9eidelberg' . Winter, BHMR", p. MMH. K*A OL

BB. I draw this account from Sheldon Wolin, %#olitical /heory as a >ocation,& AP!R MD, E !5ec. BHMH"' BRN . K*A OL

BC. /hough I should add parenthetically that both ephalus-s and #olemarchus-s definitions of ustice are encompassed in theclass structure of the ideal city' the members of the moneymaking class pay their debts0 the members of the warrior class arelike well$bred dogs, kind to their friends, fierce to their enemies. /hrasymachus and the ustice of tyrants remains une(plainedin this schema. #erhaps that is owing to the difficulty of successfully uniting philosophical knowledge and political power. In

terms of the drama of the dialogue, can /hrasymachus-s desire for power be tamed and his soul turned toward the love ofwisdom? ;r, conversely, is the philosopher-s will to knowledge really a will to power, and Socrates- desire not for wisdom butfor rule and control? K*A OL

BD. 4. 9. 4ac2ues, Plato s HRepublicI* A eginner s Guide !5erby, :ng.' itadel #ress0 7ondon' /om Stacey, BHNB", p. FB, citedin Guthrie, Plato, p. EEE EF. K*A OL

BE. The &ar)CEngels Reader, ed. <obert . /ucker, Cd ed. !+ew 3ork' +orton, BHN ", p. BEF. K*A O L

BF. )riedlTnder, Plato, B' BED. K*A OL

BM. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. BCM. K*A OL

BN. Alister ameron, The #dentity o Oedipus the 4ing !+ew 3ork' +ew 3ork =niversity #ress, BHM ", pp. FR FB. K*A OL

B . +ot all dialogues ideali e the e(perience of conversion. #olemarchus hints at this when he asks, %9ow can you persuade usif we won-t listen?& and in Gorgias, allicles refuses to listen. K*A O L

BH. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. BDE. K*A OL

CR. I have here taken certain liberties with 1artha +ussbaum-s account of philosophical dialogue. I should say somethingabout her claim that dialogue moves from particular to general accounts and udgments, and that %tragedy warns us of the

dangers inherent in the search for one form by continually displaying to us the irreducible richness of human value, thecomple(ity and indeterminacy of the lived practical situation,& while Socratic dialogue does not. As I have indicated, thatwarning might come from Socratic philosophy as well. I certainly argue that philosophical dialogue attends to the particular'Socrates treats his interlocutors as particular individuals with different and distinct needs. 9e treats his fellow citi ens, not asabstract e2uals before the law, but as a father or older brother would treat his sons or younger brothers. At the same time, we










































should not neglect the philosophical elements in tragedy' Socrates does show us how to rise above the particularities oftragedy to in2uiry, yet conversely, ;edipus and Socrates show us that in2uiry can be tragic. I therefore think that +ussbaumunderstates tragedy-s search for truth. /ragic theater indeed displays %the comple(ity and indeterminacy of the lived practicalsituation,& yet it does so in a highly ordered and structured way. /ragedy might not ultimately find a %single or unitary form oftruth,& yet the impulse to search it out resides in the fabric and organi ation of the te(t, even as the play itself warns againstsuch searches. +ussbaum both underplays the intellectual aspects of tragedy and overstates her case against philosophicaldialogue when she argues that tragedy is antiphilosophical and dialogue overly abstract, determinate, ultimately reductionist,and so antitragic. K*A O L

CB. /his is as true for #lato-s contemporaries as it is for us. See 4ulia Annas, An #ntroduction to Plato s Republic !;(ford'

larendon #ress, BH B", p. C. K*A O LCC. )riedlTnder, Plato, C' FR FM. K*A OL

CD. 5iskin lay, %;n <eading the Republic, & in Platonic (ritings 2 Platonic Readings, ed. harles Griswold !<outledge' +ew3ork, BH ", p. CC. K*A OL

CE. Ibid., p. CD. I agree with lay that the Republic is structured by interruptions and 2uestions, but where he argues that thebook is ultimately %an open dialogue,& I maintain that the te(t subverts itself, undermines its drive toward closure, and2uestions its conclusions. /his is to recogni e contending forces at work in the te(t that make it an ambivalent book, but notto settle for a %single& reading, either %open& or %closed.& K*A OL

CF. )or a recent statement of these two positions, see 5ale 9all, %/he <epublic and the 7imits of #olitics,& Political Theory F, D!Aug. BHNN", and the response by Allan *loom that follows. +ichols, %/he Republic -s /wo Alternatives,& pp. CFC NE, finds adiscrepancy in the Republic as to what philosophy means, although she finally concludes that %#lato obviously prefers Socrates,whose way of life he immortali es in his dialogues, to the philosopher$kings of the Republic & !CNR". )or +ichols, the mosttelling way in which #lato distinguishes himself from Socrates is by writing. )or an e(tended treatment of this position, seeher !ocrates and the Political $ommunity* An Ancient Debate !Albany, +.3.' State =niversity of +ew 3ork #ress, BH N". K*A O L

CM. /his is ornford-s position in ?n"ritten Philosophy, pp. F FH, as well as Oarl #opper-s in The Open !ociety and #ts

Enemies, vol. B' The !pell o Plato !BHEH", Fth ed. !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHMM". <. S. *luck defends#lato against some of #opper-s more outrageous allegations in %Is #lato-s Republic a /heocracy?& Philosophical Juarterly F, B!4an. BHFF"' MH ND. K*A O L

CN. )or a similarly dramatic reading of #lato-s dialogues, besides the works of Strauss, Sesonske, and )riedlTnder cited in n. Habove, see :ric >oegelin, Plato and Aristotle !*aton <ouge' 7ouisiana State =niversity #ress, BHFN"0 4acob Olein, A$ommentary on Plato s &eno ! hapel 9ill' =niversity of +orth arolina #ress, BHMF"0 #aul #lass, %#hilosophical Anonymity andIrony in the #latonic 5ialogues,& American 1ournal o Philology F, D !BHME"' CFE N 0 and 4. 9. <andall, Plato* Dramatist o the0i e o Reason !+ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BHNR". K*A OL

C . ;n this issue of pessimism and the renunciation of politics, see lay, %;n <eading the Republic, & pp. DC DD. K*A OL

CH. Arlene Sa(onhouse characteri es Socratic philosophy this way in %/he #hilosophy of the #articular and the =niversality ofthe ity' Socrates- :ducation of :uthyphro,& Political Theory BM, C !1ay BH ". K*A OL

DR. Strauss, $ity and &an, p. BCN0 Allan *loom, The Republic o Plato !+ew 3ork' *asic *ooks, BHM ", %Interpretive:ssay.& K*A OL

DB. ;n #lato-s 2uestioning of Socratic 2uestioning, see 4ohn Sallis eing and 0ogos* The (ay o the PlatonicDialogue !#ittsburgh, #a.' 5u2uesne =niversity #ress, BHN ", p. CN. K*A O L

DC. /imothy <eiss, in Tragedy and Truth !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH R", pp. CBff., describes Greek tragedythis way. K*A OL

DD. See, e.g., 1a( 9orkheimer, %/raditional and ritical /heory,& in id., $ritical Theory* !elected Essays, trans. 1atthew 4.;- onnell et al. !+ew 3ork' 9erder and 9erder, BHNC", p. CED. See also the %#ostscript,& p. CEM, where 9orkheimer comparescritical theory with Greek philosophy' %Its goal is man-s emancipation from slavery. In this it resembles Greek philosophy, notso much in the 9ellenistic age of resignation as in the golden age of #lato and Aristotle.& K*A OL

DE. See, e.g., the essays in 48rgen 9abermas, To"ard a Rational !ociety, trans. 4eremy 4. Shapiro !*oston' *eacon #ress,BHNR"0 id.,4no"ledge and +uman #nterests, trans. 4eremy 4. Shapiro !*oston' *eacon #ress, BHNB"0 and The Theory o$ommunicative Action, trans. /homas 1c arthy !*oston' *eacon #ress, BH E, BH N". K*A O L

DF. ;n this point, see 1artha +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, pp. BCB DC, esp. p. BCD. K*A OL

DM. William onnolly, %5emocracy and /erritoriality,& &illenium* 1ournal o #nternational !tudies CR, D !Winter BHHB"'EMF. K*A OL

+-* ;n this pun in #lato, see lay, %;n <eading the Republic, & p. BH. K*A O L

+ *

!. 0e"ocracy and 0isci,*ine in Aeschy*us s Oresteia

5emocratic ages are times of e(periment, innovation andadventure.

/he sub ect is constituted through the force of e(clusion and ab ection, one which produces aconstitutive outside to the sub ect, an ab ected outside which is, after all, %inside& the sub ect as itsown founding repudiation.

/he dispute between 9abermas and )oucault sketched in chapter B leaves us with a choicebetween democratic politics and %normali ing& techni2ues, between the ideal of a rationally



















































achieved consensus and the re ection of all democratic ideals as insidious strategies that aim todiscipline selves and citi ens. 5emocracy represents either our last, best hope of fulfilling thepolitical promises of the :nlightenment or else is one more regulative ideal, a subtle strategy ofdisciplinary control that ironically e(tends the carceral archipelago.Stated in terms as stark as these, critical theory and genealogy share little, if any, commonground on the terrain of democratic politics and theory. What to 9abermas are merely thenecessary preconditions for radical democratic will formation—the rational, autonomous,

deliberative, consensus$oriented self—are for )oucault the prior effects of a power that producesthe very sub ect it then controls. ;nly those selves that attain the critical threshold of rationalityrightly take their places on the deliberative tribunal, yet the very re2uirements of rationaldeliberation serve to e(clude, silence, or discipline those differential selves that democracyre2uires. Separated by this radical divergence between the need to maintain the prere2uisites ofdemocratic culture and practice and the determination to disrupt modern, democratic forms ofnormali ation, these views construct mutually e(clusive interpretations of contemporarydemocratic theory and politics. We are left with the unsatisfying dilemma of having to choosebetween a homogeni ing democratic consensus and a perpetually agonistic politics of resistance.Is it possible, however, to envision a democratic sensibility that balances the 2uest to fulfill thedemocratic aspirations of critical theory with an attendant politics of resistance meant to disturband otherwise unsettle the normali ing effects of a democratic order? 1ight we not yet articulatea %democratic politics of disturbance,& [ 1 ] a politics that resists the norms and forms of ademocratically and consensually constituted self and order even as it provides a democraticidentity and practice against which to struggle? #ut another way, is it possible to sustain thetension between a democratic critical theory and a genealogy critical of democracy, between9abermas and )oucault, and so pursue the dream of a democratic politics while simultaneouslyavoiding the nightmare of disciplinary !en"closure?I think it is, and this chapter considers the contribution Aeschylus-s Oresteia makes to ademocratic politics of disturbance, a politics that !like the trilogy" sustains and celebratesdemocratic norms even as it resists and otherwise disrupts democratic normali ation. *ut whychoose the Oresteia, and in what ways does Aeschylus-s trilogy speak to the contemporary issueswith which I am concerned? [ 2 ]

• • •

/here are at least two reasons why Aeschylus-s Oresteia is particularly well suited to help us thinkthrough the contemporary tension between democracy and the discipline it potentially engenders.It is by now a commonplace to note that Greek tragedy emerged when the old myths were forthe first time considered from the point of view of a citi en. As 4ean$#ierre >ernant has pointedout, all tragedies shared this concern with the city by virtue of their ritual status within theconte(t of a popular and democratic civic festival. [ 3 ] /he Oresteia is uni2ue, however, because italone of all e(tant tragedies is preoccupied with the newly emerging democratic order itself. [ ] Inthe conte(t of a democratic celebration, the Oresteia celebrates democracy.All tragedians also reworked and e(panded the traditional myths that supplied their material, andAeschylus was certainly no e(ception to this. [ ! ] What I find especially significant aboutthe Oresteia is the specific way in which Aeschylus revised the ancient, mythic materials so thatAthenian democracy provided the trilogy-s content as well as its conte(t. Athens-s own recent,

ongoing democratic transformations are surely reflected in the fact that the playwright choseArgos over the traditional settings of Sparta or 1ycenae, transferred the action to Athens, alludedto a recently concluded treaty with the Argives, and employed the Areopagus as his instrumentfor disrupting the ancient chain of vengeance and countervengeance. [ $ ] Athena-s establishmentof the law court, the ac2uittal of ;restes, the reconciliation of the :rinyes, their acceptance inAthens, and their transformation into the new cult of the :umenides are also the inventions ofthe poet. [ %] )inally, the pageant that concludes the play and trilogy recalls the democratic festivalof the Great #anathenaia, which, as the name suggests, was a celebration that included allAthens and culminated in a procession to the Acropolis, where a sacrifice was offered to Athena.As Athena leads the procession of :umenides and citi ens from the theater to the Acropolis, thelegendary aristocratic past fuses with the city-s contemporary democratic present. [ &] /he finalplay of the trilogy presents democratic Athens to itself./he critics agree that the Oresteia, first performed in the spring of EF * . .—not more than threeor four years after the momentous events that abolished the political power of the Areopagus inEMC EMB—is ine(tricably linked to contemporary Athenian politics. All cite the reforms, led by:phialtes, that broke the traditional power of the Areopagus, the last aristocratic bulwark against



















a rising popular tide, the reorientation of foreign policy away from conservative Sparta andtoward Argos, and the ostracism of imon, the respected leader of the conservative party, asinfluences on the trilogy. All power passed to the Assembly and the ouncil of FRR—that is, to thedemos of Athens—and the citi ens effectively gained control over the constitution as a whole. /obe sure, the great aristocratic families remained powers to be reckoned with, but birth alone nolonger determined political position' every citi en was born a second time into an artificial orderconstituted and bounded by e2uality before the law ! isonomia " embodied in a legal, constitutional

order. [ ' ] Although there is considerable controversy over the significance of allusions tocontemporary political events, all are agreed that in the Oresteia, the playwright reflected onAthens-s newly emerging democracy. [ 1( ]

>iewed in retrospect, then, from the opening lines of Agamemnon to the final scenes ofthe Eumenides, the trilogy seems to lead in a significant sense toward a resolution in thedemocratic polis. /he whole trilogy, but particularly the Eumenides, thus concerns itself primarilywith %the city of Athens and its newly established civic order.& [ 11 ] When Athena establishes thelaw court and calls upon her %best citi ens& to render udgment in the first homicide case, shealludes to that event when, for the first time in Greek history—in world history—the civic order asa whole was placed at the disposal of the demos. /he events of EMC EMB were so far$reachingthat the Athenian civic order itself, its very constitution, had become a matter of popularcontroversy, hence a democratic political issue in its own right. In the Oresteia, we see thatdemocratic civic order established' conflict between tribal custom and aristocratic privilege findsits resolution in the legally constituted order of the democratic polis embodied in court of law.Within the conte(t of the :phialtic reforms, the Oresteia for the first time articulated a series ofreflections on the newly established democratic order at Athens. [ 12 ] I am concerned here toshow how that order is thought out, embodied, reflected, and challenged in and by the drama./he second reason I find the Oresteia particularly well suited for my purposes has to do with theway in which the trilogy represents the %other& in gendered terms and so introduces themarginali ation of the feminine directly into a civic conte(t. [ 13 ] In the Oresteia, for the first time,women struggle forcibly against the boundaries of the masculine public world, [ 1 ] and theoutcome of that struggle, as we shall see, is by no means certain. In retelling the 9omeric myth,Aeschylus did more than simply transfer the action from Argos to Athens and provide thecontemporary city with a founding myth for its nascent democratic order. Aeschylus implicatesgender in his retelling in such a way that one cannot avoid the 2uestions the trilogy raisesregarding the status and role of women in a democratic civic order. [ 1! ]

)or his part, 9omer virtually ignores lytemnestra. Aegisthus seduces the 2ueen, plans the trap,kills Agamemnon, takes control of the house, and is finally killed in turn by ;restes, whosuccessfully reclaims his patrimony. [ 1$ ] /he Odyssey thus focuses on the male struggle forcontrol of the household, and that struggle is settled within its narrow framework. /hetransgressions that set in motion the narrative of return and revenge find both their location andtheir resolution in the order of the oi'os . [ 1%] In the return and triumph of ;restes, as well as inthat of ;dysseus and /elemachus, the Odyssey unproblematically defines the proper andcontrolled order of the patriarchal household. [ 1& ]

Aeschylus, by contrast, focuses all his attention directly on lytemnestra-s character, revenge,and plotting of reciprocal murder. +is lytemnestra moves to the center of the stage' she, notAegisthus, sets the watchman, tricks Agamemnon, defeats him in combat, and takes control of

house and city. 9omer passes over lytemnestra-s death in silence, [ 1' ] but she becomes theob ect of further revenge in the $hoephoroi, her murder the central enacted confrontation in thecentral play of the trilogy. 1oreover, the %feminine& Aegisthus contrasts sharply with the

%masculine& lytemnestra, thereby heightening our awareness of the dramatic reversal of se(ualroles. /he deaths of Aegisthus and lytemnestra do not, however, return ;restes to hispatrimony. lytemnestra may be dead, but her )uries, the archaic goddesses of the underworld,prosecute her claim against ;restes, a claim that can only be redeemed in blood. )inally, in thetrial of the Eumenides, the arguments proffered by both sides turn in a significant way on

lytemnestra-s biological relation to ;restes, while the parado(ical figure of Athena reopens the2uestion of a woman-s civic role and status precisely at the moment of its intended resolution./hroughout the trilogy, then, men and women are at odds' women aim directly at power anddomination, while men aim to return them to their %normal& places. In the final confrontation, we

are asked to choose between our obligation to blood ties and our obligation to the city. 9omer-sheroes could hardly conceive of such a choice, much less confront it. /he transgressions thatmotivate the archaic narrative of return and revenge find both their e(pression and theirresolution in the patriarchal order of the household. Aeschylus clearly indicates, however, that the

























oikos of the noble genos is no longer ade2uate to contain and resolve the se(ual conflictunleashed within the house of Atreus. /his is in part because the household is not merely thesite, but also the cause, of the conflict between men and women. ;nly the polis, with its moreinclusive and more encompassing view, will prove ade2uate to the larger task of reconciliationAeschylus sets himself. *ut can we say that Aeschylus finds even the e(panded framework of thedemocratic polis sufficient to contain the conflicts generated in the trilogy? /he conclusion ofthe Oresteia certainly leaves no doubt that the more impartial and inclusive legal and political

institutions of Athens constitute an advance over the particularity of the household and clan, butas the persistent presence of the )uries, the unannounced departure of Apollo, and thedisplacement of the solution onto the divine agency of Athena all indicate, the conflict betweengenders is larger than the polis itself. /hat the citi en$ urors probably vote against ;restes!Athena breaks the tie in favor of the city" also suggests that perhaps the framework of the polisis itself neither ade2uate nor any too secure./hat Aeschylus departs in significant ways from the myth as it appears in 9omer and the othertraditional sources is agreed, [ 2( ] yet the nature and purpose of that departure remainscontested. A lively controversy over this issue has sprung up recently among classical scholars,[ 21 ] a controversy that illuminates, if not anticipates, my own attempt to insert the ancient te(tinto a contemporary theoretical debate. +ot surprisingly, it turns on the way in whichthe Oresteia %integrates& women into the newly founded civic order.

/he usual interpretation of the play celebrates the transition from chaos to order, darkness tolight, perversion to %normalcy.& [ 22 ] /his movement of progress occurs in the medium of a mythicstructure that reconciles conflict with harmony, the chthonic with the ;lympian divinities, femalewith male, old with new, clan$based blood vengeance with civic ustice. 4ohn 9. )inley, 4r., in aninfluential treatment as broad and inclusive as the Oresteia itself, argues that the trilogy tracesthe emergence of democracy, an order based on reason and consent, from its troubledbeginnings in the archaic past to its triumph in the contemporary Athenian regime. [ 23 ] /herational and creative male principle of freely chosen compacts !represented by Apollo and themarriage bond" triumphs over what is female, inherited from the past, natural, and local.Aeschylus thus resolves the tension between place and creativity, scope and commitment,feminine and masculine values, earth$born and ;lympian gods, Agamemnon and lytemnestra,through his faith in the moral cogency of reason, a reason that resolves conflicts, not throughassertive will, but through a generous and inclusive understanding. [ 2 ] )inley concludes hisreading of the Oresteia with the udgment that Aeschylus was a prophet of democracy andreason. 9is trilogy is more than merely a charter for the democratic polis' it is nothing less thana founding document of Western civili ation.Some feminist accounts of the Oresteia protest that while Aeschylus may depart from thetraditional narrative, he does so only to install a new myth in place of the old, and one that is,from the point of view of women, not an appreciable advance over the original. )roma Qeitlinargues, for e(ample, that a cosmogonic myth indeed structures the Oresteia -s narrative, that itcreates a world, traces the evolution of civili ation, and culminates in the triumph of thedemocratic polis, an institution endowed with %the creative power to coordinate human, naturaland divine forces.& [ 2! ] /he trial scene in the Eumenides certainly brings to an end the conflictbetween opposing interests and forces that has driven the action of the trilogy from the start./he solution, as we have seen, reconciles ;lympian with chthonic deities on the divine level,

Greek and barbarian on the cultural level, male and female on the social level. *ut Qeitlin doesnot see this solution as a true reconciliation in which opposing forces come to abide in a % ust&state of respectful mutuality and reciprocity. [ 2$ ] <ather, the %solution& of the Eumenides isachieved through the hierarchi ation of values' the subordination of the :rinyes to the;lympians, of barbarian to Greek, of female to male. /hrough the democratic rhetoric of e2uality,reason and consent legitimate the institutionali ation of e(clusionary polarities into systemati edhierarchies, rather than creating a truly democratic order. [ 2%] /he Oresteia may well be afounding document of Western civili ation, but what it founds is a tradition of misogynistice(clusion' %*y integrating the issue into a coherent system of new values, by formulating it innew abstact terms, and by shifting to a new form of argumentation, it provides the decisivemodel for the future legitimation of this attitude in Western thought.& [ 2& ] In these terms, theAthenian culture and practice of democratic citi enship prove to be one more strategy fordisciplining the %feminine other& and constructing a normal and normali ing order./he Oresteia, on this reading, replaces a dynastic myth with a myth of wide$ranging origins inwhich the democratic city is founded on the defeat and subordination of women. )or these critics,the Oresteia as origin myth creates a center, establishes a hierarchy of values based on





















/hroughout the trilogy, language is in flu(. /he Oresteia is replete with instances of deceit,manipulative persuasion, and miscommunication in the e(change of language. 3et the trilogymakes a coherent point about the ambiguities and ironies of language and so articulates thedangers, difficulties, and violations that attend the founding of an effectively functioning civicdiscourse. lytemnestra-s manipulative use of persuasive language enables her to overthroworder and illustrates the way in which the trilogy dramati es the radical instability of the verydiscourse it aims to establish.

/he difficulties that hamper clear human communication are announced by the watchman-s lastwords at the very beginning of the trilogy !DDff."'

1ay it only happen. 1ay my king come home, and Itake up within this hand the hand I love. /he restI leave to silence0 for an o( stands huge uponmy tongue. /he house itself, could it take voice, might speakaloud and plain. I speak to those who understand,but if they fail, I have forgotten everything.

/he watchman-s parting words are significant for more than their tone of foreboding, [ 32 ] for morethan their warning about what has transpired in the king-s absence' the passage is remarkablefor the way its u(taposition of speech and silence, clarity and obscurity, prefigures the play-s

preoccupation with the e(change of words on stage. 7ike 9eraclitus-s description of the oracle,the watchman neither speaks out nor conceals, but gives a sign to be interpreted, [ 33 ] while thecontrast between saphestat and l thomai, clarity and obscurity, alerts us to a discrepancybetween what is said and what is meant. /he watchman is here offering us an interpretiveprinciple' silence often speaks volumes, while what needs saying is often left unsaid, and what issaid is not always what is meant.

We can use this principle to interpret the ambiguous speeches and their meanings in the play.lytemnestra e(ploits it to create a discrepancy between what she says and what she means.

She is adept at meaning both more and less than she says. 9er purposeful deceit resides in herability to dissociate what she means from what she says, and her chain of beacon firesdemonstrates this skill. While the ingenious signal system serves severally to warn her ofAgamemnon-s return, display her command of technological resources, [ 3 ] and disclose hermasculine character !a woman of man$counseling heart", it also demonstrates lytemnestra-scontrol over the process of communication. [ 3! ] lytemnestra gives two proofs of /roy-s fall to thechorus, two speeches that, viewed in the conte(t of communication and e(change, could not bemore different. /he first speech is a purely technical description of how the message traveledfrom /roy to Argos, proving lytemnestra-s familiarity with geography, [ 3$ ] while the content ofthe second speech is almost oracular in its images and prophetic truth. /his u(taposition of formand content, of message and meaning, amply reveals lytemnestra-s ability to control theprocess of communication to her advantage. /he beacon signal in itself means nothing, it onlygains significance in the conte(t of a prearranged system, a code. *y e(plaining her codingsystem to the chorus, lytemnestra establishes her skill and knowledge. It is only in the secondspeech that she reveals to the chorus the signal light-s meaning, where she gives a detailed,prophetic account of the destruction and violation at /roy. /he separation of the two proofs in two

separate speeches, and the separation of form from content, emphasi es the arbitrary connectionbetween what is said and what is meant, the code and its content, that marks the verbale(changes in the trilogy. [ 3%]

/he beacon speeches scene thus serves as both preface and prelude to lytemnestra-s deceptionof the returning Agamemnon. If the 2ueen %renowned for skill& [ 3& ] revealed the principle of hermethod in the first two speeches, she is now prepared to put that method into practice upon thereturn of the king. In defending her fidelity and deceiving Agamemnon, lytemnestra willdemonstrate her formidable power to manipulate language through rhetorical persuasion. In herfirst speech, addressed to the chorus, she reflects on the king-s homecoming'

*ut now how best to speed my preparation toreceive my honored lord come home again—what elseis light more sweet for woman to behold than this,to spread the gates before her husband home from warand saved by god-s hand? !MRR MRE"

















A conventional enough sentiment for a wife who anticipates the return of a husband after a ten$year absence. 3et we know the sinister intent behind the 2ueen-s haste, that she longs for thesweetness of revenge, secretly glad that Agamemnon has been delivered by the hand of a godinto her own hands.

/he remainder of this speech is significant for at least two reasons. )irst, it continues to play outthe ironic deception, intending the opposite of what is said, while at the same time it reveals adeeper and more comple( layer in lytemnestra-s manipulation of Agamemnon. When she wishesthat her husband find her as faithful to the house as on the day he left, she is not lying. Whenshe describes herself as a gunai'a pist n d en domois [ 3' ] !a woman faithful to the house" anda dBmatBn'una !a watchdog of the house", she in fact professes fidelity to the house, not toAgamemnon. [ ( ] lytemnestra-s words ring true because there is some truth in them. *ut thisspeech is also significant because it sends a message, and we have seen how important theconte(t of message sending and receiving is. %/ake this message to the king& looks backward tothe %coded message& ! paraggeilantos " sent forth from /roy to Argos !and forward to anotherfalse message ! hupangelos,$hoephoroi D " that will summon Aegisthus without his bodyguard".

lytemnestra-s skill lies in her ability to encode messages the chorus and Agamemnon do notunderstand, messages, however, that the spectator successfully decodes. )rom this vantagepoint, we are able to restore to language %the full function of communication that it has lost onthe stage between the protagonists in the drama& and so e(perience in this process those ones

of incommunicability that successful communication re2uires.lytemnestra-s second speech reasserts her fidelity to Agamemnon in even stronger terms, and

once again e(presses sentiments more comple( than they at first appear. She recounts to thechorus the pangs of a wife left alone while her husband is gone to war' her an(iety at theoutbreak of groundless rumors, her attempt to hang herself and her dreams of his death. ;nceagain, lytemnestra speaks duplicitously in order to further her plot and deceive Agamemnon,yet she ironically tells the truth. /here is no reason to doubt that she has longed for his return,although if at first this longing fed on love, now it surely feeds on hatred' she longs forAgamemnon in order to kill him. 9er speech is all the more deceptive because of this coreelement of truth in it. [ 1 ] /he 2ueen-s speech, so full of allusions to her past anguish, is also fullof the vocabulary of rumor, false tales, and lying speeches. As she dwells on the long years ofmisinformation, false reports, and deceptive messages, we reali e that lytemnestra not only

weaves a net of deception around Agamemnon, but that her false language describes itself in theaccount she constructs of her past e(perience. /he 2ueen-s speech refers to itself' it is adeceptive speech about deceptive speeches. [ 2 ]

All this prepares for Agamemnon-s entry into the house across the purple tapestries.

+ow, my beloved one,step from your chariot0 yet let not your foot, my lord,sacker of Ilium, touch the earth. 1y maidens thereWhy this delay? 3our task has been appointed you,to strew the ground before his feet with tapestries.7et there spring up into the house he never hopedto see, where ustice leads him in, a crimson path.In all things else, my heart-s unsleeping care shall actwith the gods- aid to set aright what fate ordained. !HRF BB"

/he image is that of a spider at the center of a web, who will entangle its hapless victim aslytemnestra will entangle Agamemnon in the robes upon which he treads. [ 3 ] /he spectators,

although perhaps not the chorus, cannot mistake the menace in lytemnestraXs welcome. 3etAgamemnon is characteristically unconscious of her irony and must feel that as the con2ueringhero returning home, he well deserves the right to walk on the tapestries. Why, then, does he atfirst refuse to tread upon the crimson path? ertainly, his refusal heightens the tension in thescene, for once Agamemnon steps upon the tapestries, his fate is sealed. /here is good dramaticsense here. *ut Agamemnon demurs for some very good reasons of his own' he fears beingmade effeminate0 he recoils from such profligate wastage of the substance of his house, and hefears the envy of the gods. It is not his place as a mortal, Greek male to tread upon such wealth.;f course, no such scruples hindered him from sacrificing Iphigeneia, described as the delight of

his house, nor did fear of the gods restrain him from trampling upon the altars at /roy. /his scenesurely recalls those earlier transgressions, yet Agamemnon is again characteristically blind to themeaning of his own deeds and impermeable to lytemnestraXs brilliant indirection and deception./he 2ueen predictably e(ploits AgamemnonXs one$sidedness to her advantage' he fears the gods













sacrifice to Artemis-s anger at Qeus. )inally, there is Apollo-s failed seduction of assandra andthe /ro an prophetess-s return to Argos with the con2uering hero.9ere is a formidable list of reasons to e(plain lytemnestra-s act' ancient curse, revenge, longingturned to anger, ealousy. )or <. #. Winnington$Ingram, however, these are all secondary to thecentral feature of lytemnestra-s anomalous personality' for lytemnestra %hated Agamemnonnot simply because he had killed her child, not because she loved Aegisthus, but out of a ealousythat was not ealousy of hryseis or assandra, but of Agamemnon himself and his status as a

man. )or she herself is of manly temper, and the dominance of a man is abhorrent toher.& [ $ ] /he blow struck against Agamemnon, then, is not merely a blow of vengeance, but also

%a blow struck for her personal liberty.& /he watchman and chorus !the latter somewhat grudgingly" recogni e lytemnestra-s formidablepower. /he former describes her as a woman with a man$counseling heart, and the ingenioussignal light she devises and uses demonstrates her masculine control of resources to us and tothe chorus. *oth watchman and chorus praise her ability to speak like a man, and both mentionher power ! 'ratei, BR0 'ratos, CF ". )inally, the word 'ratei marks the clima( of her verbal dualwith Agamemnon. lytemnestra-s anomalous character thus accounts for her anomalous actions.It is no coincidence that the 2ueen enters on the word ni' !victory".)or lytemnestra must not only gain a victory over Agamemnon, she must also prove herselfstronger. /his she does on her chosen field of battle, the purple tapestries. I have already

e(amined this scene in terms of verbal deceit. 9ere I only want to comment briefly on thereversal of se(ual roles and on the pervasive images of war, battle, and combat. lytemnestrahas already proved herself to be unnaturally knowledgeable about things martial in herdescription of /roy-s defeat and the Greek plunder of the city !DCR FB". /hat account, however, isnot wholly consistent with a role traditionally considered male. 1ichael Gagarin has noticed thatwhile lytemnestra plays a male role, she continues to represent a woman-s point of view andfeminine values. After announcing the Greek victory !DCR" she dwells upon the fate of thecon2uered, who are now enslaved !DCM CH", before she proceeds to describe the rather limited

oys of the victors !DDR DN" and warn them against despoiling the altars of the city. Gagarinconcludes that this view of the situation %with its concern for and understanding of the plight ofthe defeated survivors and its very limited sense of oy at the victory, can properly be calledfemale.& [ %] 1oreover, lytemnestra-s account contrasts markedly with that of the herald, whomentions the suffering of the army before /roy only to emphasi e an unrestrained oy at thevictory and the destruction of the holy places. So while lytemnestra is well versed in thecouncils of men, she maintains what is traditionally considered a feminine sensibility. [ &]

/his con unction of opposites is no less present in the carpet scene, where lytemnestra oinsbattle with Agamemnon. /he e(change between 2ueen and king is littered with words ofwar' mach s !HER", battle or combat0 to ni'asthai !HEB", the victor or thecon2ueror0 d erios !HEC", fight, battle, or contest0 'atestrammai !HFM", to be subdued,compelled, or sub ected by another. [ ' ] lytemnestra will subdue Agamemnon as the con2uerorsubdued /roy. 3et here, too, something more comple( occurs, because lytemnestra first choosesto do battle with cunning words, not sharp swords, as the weapon of choice. She defeatsAgamemnon in verbal contest so that she may all the more surely defeat him physically. Although

lytemnestra has a penchant for battle, she employs means the Greeks traditionally associatedwith women. +ot the least of these is her final appeal to Agamemnon-s masculine vanity, a

danger of which the king is characteristically unaware. [ !( ] /he chorus will later complain ofAgamemnon-s ignominious death at the hands of a woman—and in the bath, not on thebattlefield—a tacit acknowledgement that lytemnestra, a woman, is more intelligent, and sostronger, than Agamemnon, a man.

Agamemnon portrays lytemnestra as unnatural' it is not %normal& for the woman to best theman, much less kill him0 it is not %natural& for the woman to want power ! 'ratos " or to rule,although this is surely what motivates the 2ueen, nor is it natural that a mother re ect herchildren as lytemnestra has :lectra and ;restes. Aeschylus portrays the anomalous nature of

lytemnestra with a cluster of dragon, snake, and monster images, images reinforced by thechorus-s allusion to the crimes of the 7emnian women. [ !1 ] *ut the perversion of the natural orderis nowhere e(pressed in such terrifying terms as when lytemnestra inverts the ritual languageof fertility and death, life$giving rain and death$oo ing blood. As she stands over the corpse of

Agamemnon, she overturns not only the gendered order of the family and the city, but the orderof the cosmos as well'















/hus he went down, and the life struggled out of him0and as he died he spattered me with the dark redand violent driven rain of bitter savored bloodto make me glad, as gardens stand among the showersof God in glory at the birthtime of the buds. !BD HC"

lytemnestra has transgressed the natural order so that blood and death bring rain and life in

this unparalleled travesty of ritual language. [ !2 ]

I do not want to neglect the fact that much of what the 2ueen does, she does in reaction to whatAgamemnon has done to her and as part of her role in playing out the family-s curse. /hus wemust not forget that Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigeneia, was away at war for ten years, and thenreturned with assandra. Agamemnon surely insulted lytemnestra in her status as a mother bykilling Iphigeneia and in her status as a wife through his neglect of her and his infidelity. [ !3 ] Ithink a good case can be made in favor of lytemnestra, although I am less interested in thee(tent of her %guilt& !as >ickers notes, she herself does not feel guilty" than in the e ects heractions have on the linguistic and se(ual order and on the way in which that order is!de"stabili ed in the trilogy.Significant for my analysis is that lytemnestra gains power in Argos through her manipulativeuse of language, for her deliberate trespasses against the boundaries of both linguistic andse(ual order. As lytemnestra manipulates language to confound the male$ordered civicdiscourse, she oins those other transgressing women—Antigone, 1edea, Agave—who pose aserious threat to the order of the patriarchal city. lytemnestra challenges the hierarchies andrules of the public masculine world by leaving the interior space of the house for the e(teriorspaces of the city, by e(changing the powerlessness of a woman for the power of a man.

lytemnestra turns the linguistic and se(ual order of the trilogy upside down.

• • •1y analysis of the previous scenes, like the trilogy itself, necessarily converges onthe Eumenides and its promise of reconciliation. /he final 2uestion I wish to consider concernsthe e(tent to which the concluding play of the trilogy redeems this promise by solving the twinproblems of establishing an effectively functioning civic discourse and integrating the feminine

other into the democratic order of the polis. /o do this, I shall comment on the trial itself, on thefigure of Athena, and on Aeschylus-s use of theatricality. I turn to these final scenes—to the trialof ;restes, the establishment of the Areopagus, Athena-s persuasion of the )uries, the finalprocession—because how one reads the dynamics, outcome, and aftermath of the trial to a largedegree determines how one understands the trilogy as a whole.

ritics have long noticed a double progression in the movement of the Oresteia, that action andimagery cohere. [ ! ] /he trilogy moves simultaneously toward the resolution of conflict andtoward transparency in speech, twin aspects of the trilogy-s composition that complement andmutually reinforce each other. ;n the level of action, legal ustice replaces blood vengeance,;restes is ac2uitted, the )uries are reconciled and take up their new duties in con unction withthe Areopagus, Argos and Athens are allied, sacrificial ritual is restored, men and women returnto their proper places. /he natural order of the world is set right. At the level of imagery andlinguistic te(ture, Ann 7ebeck has powerfully described how the Oresteia moves from enigmaticutterance to clear statement, from riddle to solution. /hrough its use of imagery and in thete(ture of its poetry, the trilogy transforms darkness into light, the blood$stained robesof Agamemnon into the festival garments of the final pageant, the dense poetry andclaustrophobic atmosphere of the earlier plays into the comparatively straightforward and clearstatements of the Eumenides. [ !! ]

3et a disturbing countermovement that keeps alive and intact the tensions and oppositions of theearlier plays, disappointing our hopes for a permanent resolution to the conflicts ofthe Oresteia, lies underneath, or perhaps alongside, the triumphant celebration of the well$ordered polis that crowns the trilogy. A number of ambiguities persist in the final scenes ofthe Eumenides that challenge our e(pectations of harmony, fulfillment, and reconciliation. )irst,of course, is the trial itself. ;restes is ac2uitted, but as Athena points out, this hardly constitutesan unalloyed victory for him or defeat and dishonor for the )uries !NHF". /he oracle has come to

pass, but this does not mean that ;restes is free of all guilt. Its wording is significantly negative';restes was to suffer no harm for what he did !NHH". An absence of punishment does notnecessarily imply an absence of responsibility. /he vote is also tied, and this in itself attests tothe uncertainty of the case. *ut depending on how one interprets the voting procedure !another











ambiguity", %the vote of Athena& means either that the ury of twelve citi ens split e2ually, andAthena-s was a casting vote in favor of ;restes, or else that the human ury numbered eleven,with Athena its twelfth, divine, member, who votes for ;restes and so achieves ac2uittal by a tie./he latter possibility means that a ma ority of the Athenian urors voted against ;restes andApollo and or lytemnestra and the )uries. [ !$ ] 1oreover, that Athena ultimately decides the caseby either making or breaking a tie, and in so doing displaces the verdict from the human to thedivine realm, indicates that human udgment and ustice cannot decide the matter. It is Athena,

not the legal process, that settles the conflict.Although Athena ultimately decides the case based on grounds given by Apollo, there are anumber of reasons why we ought to be skeptical of that god-s authority and so of the triumph ofthe values for which he stands—those of polis, Greek, reason, progress, and the male—over thevalues of oikos, barbarian, passion, tradition, and the female. )irst, Apollo-s dismissal of, andobvious contempt for, the )uries and their claims is counterproductive. )or it is Athena, notApollo, who actually fulfills the oracle. 1oreover, Apollo is an essentially inconstant figurethroughout the trilogy, and so his claim to partisan victory is suspect. Apollo sends the avengingAtreidae against /roy and a plague on the Greek avengers, destroys the /ro an assandra, andthen sends ;restes to avenge her death and the death of Agamemnon. [ !% ] Apollo is thus notalways for the male, and on occasion he works with the )uries, rather than against them. +or arethe )uries always opposed to the younger gods or solely concerned with marriage' they havepreviously been linked with the will of Qeus, ;restes fears them if he neglects to avenge hisfather ! $hoephoroi CMH HM", assandra associates the )uries with the curse on the house ofAtreus, and the Argive army is sent to /roy as an avenging )ury. /he scope of the )uries-commitments is as wide as Apollo is ambiguous. Surely Aeschylus ends the trilogy in a way thatpartially vindicates Apollo by fulfilling his oracle. *ut through the ambiguous portrayal of the god,he also points to the tremendous human suffering along the way, suggesting the limits of such avindication in a conclusion that is disturbing in that it both %resolves and leaves unresolved.& [ !& ]

)inally, there is evidence e(ternal to the trilogy indicating that an Athenian audience wouldsuspect an Apollo who had previously gone over to the #ersians and who has close associationswith the 5orian !i.e., pro$Spartan" aristocracies. [ !' ] A god who could be wrong about politics,Winnington$Ingram reasons, %is not necessarily right about men and women.& [ $( ] /here is goodreason, then, to be somewhat skeptical of Apollo-s authority and arguments in his defense of;restes.5espite the momentous outcome in favor of ;restes, the trial is not the clima( of the play. :venthough ;restes is ac2uitted, the play is far from over. Almost a third of it, some DRR lines, stillremains. Athena must persuade the )uries that they are not dishonored, that ;restes- ac2uittaldoes not mean their defeat, and that they should accept their new position as tutelary deities ofthe homicide court. ;nly when the )uries accede to Athena-s combination of blandishments,threats, and respectful persuasion, does the reader !or the audience" feel secure.3et this feeling of security and release proves in no way permanent or conclusive. :ven though;restes is ac2uitted and the )uries are incorporated into the new order as the :umenides !Oindly;nes", disturbing images and memories from the earlier plays continue to mar the oyous finaleand provide both conte(t for, and threat to, the trilogy-s ultimate achievement. /he wholeciti enry of Athens participates in a pageant in which the luminous torchlight and the purplerobes of the processional recall the sinister signal fires and the purple$stained carpet

of Agamemnon as much as they oyously signify their transformation./here is one other way in which the final scenes of the Oresteia recall both what has gone beforeand how precarious its accomplishments are. 7ater in this chapter I comment on the )uries-hymn to ustice and the way in which Athena manipulates the ambiguities in the languageof di' to establish the law court in the face of the goddesses- opposition. I do not want todiscuss that scene any more than necessary here, e(cept to note that when Athena echoes the)uries- sentiments in admonishing her citi ens %never to cast fear utterly from the city,& she, too,reminds the reader !and audience" of the conflict, perversion, and pollution that have gonebefore. 5espite the %happy ending,& as *rian >ickers remarks, %it is the violence and perversionthat live on in the memory.& /he play thus creates a %remarkably powerful image of those threatsagainst human being which are a corollary of our fragile e(istence.& >ickers concludes, echoingAthena, that %reading the Oresteia makes one afraid for one-s life.& [ $1 ]

/he founding of the democratic polis is a precarious achievement, however, not only because itrests on the outcome of an inconclusive trial, and because of the disturbing echoes inthe Eumenides, but because the new order will not entirely do away with the conflict that ariseswhen we find ourselves forced to choose between alternatives that e2ually claim our concern and















commitment, like Agamemnon at Aulis and ;restes at Argos. ertainly, the collectivity of citi ens,together with the newly instituted law court, will mitigate and mediate those tensions andoppositions that engender tragic e(perience, at least a little and for a while. *ut men and womenwill always be torn between conflicting commitments' to the oikos or the polis, to home, place,family, and friends on the one hand and to glory, honor, adventure, and immortal fame won atthe e(pense of the former, on the other. Although fathers will not always be asked to choosebetween a daughter and their army, mothers and wives between a husband and a daughter, nor

sons between a mother and a father, most of us will e(perience the difficulty of balancing careerand family in a society that does not honor both e2ually. )or nowhere does Aeschylus indicatethat human beings can %structure their lives and commitments so that in the ordinary course ofevents they will be able to stay clear of serious conflict.& [ $2 ] +owhere does the Oresteia indicatethat wisdom comes without suffering or that there is goodness without fragility. Wisdom mustcontinually be rewon, while the goodness of the city depends on the unceasing and tirelessefforts of its citi ens. /he trilogy does not let us forget that faith placed in finite solutions tocomple( human dilemmas is faith misplaced. /he newly founded civic order, Aeschylus suggests,with its impartial and more comprehensive political and legal institutions, is not the solution tothe problem of di' , but it is perhaps a solution.If it is true that from the opening lines of the Agamemnon to the final scenes ofthe Eumenides, the trilogy leads toward a resolution in the democratic polis, then it is e2uallytrue that the lines of that resolution converge on the figure of Athena. /hey do so in two ways.I have already suggested that the Oresteia seeks a solution to the cycle of blood vengeance inthe stability of civic discourse. As in #lato-s Republic, the problem for Aeschylus lies in anambiguous e(cess of meaning, a depth in signification that proliferates competing claims ratherthan reduces or resolves them. 1ore often than not, characters use this ambiguity in language toset up barriers to communication rather than to establish it. /he e(amples of linguistictransgression that occur throughout the trilogy thus challenge our ability to specify meaning inlanguage, to control the power of speech, and so to rely on the stable categories that constitutethe basis of the social order. In these terms, the foundation of the law court and the subse2uentverdict in favor of ac2uittal aim to fi( a meaning for di' , to establish once and for all a securecivic discourse in which contending claims and competing interests might be ad udicated, if notreconciled. 3et, as we have seen, e2ual votes comprise that decision, an indication that theclaims of each side weigh e2ually in the balance and that the newly formed legal institutions ofthe city cannot solve the problem of di' . Aeschylus must displace the final decision to Athena-sdivine agency, a displacement that is crucial for a proper understanding of the trilogy-s resolution.)irst, and most obviously, it is crucial because as a dramatic device, it heightens the tension inthe scene. 1oreover, such a displacement points once again to the failure of humancommunication and interpretation that persistently mars the trilogy. It is most important,however, because it places the burden of decision, hence of reconciliation, on Athena. )or Athenais an interesting figure in Aeschylus-s articulation of the discursive and se(ual economy of thetrilogy. [ $3 ]

Athena is important for the way in which she establishes linguistic order, and so ustice, inthe Eumenides. In the stasimon sung to ustice !EHR FMF", the )uries appeal to a senseof di' familiar from the earlier plays of the trilogy. /heirs is a ustice that relies on fear, respect,and reverence for the inherited bonds of obligation—without fear of ust retribution, parents

would not feel themselves safe in the presence of their children. /he result would be eitheranarchy or despotism. /he )uries understand the social order to be coterminous with bloodrelations. /hey thus protect society by prosecuting crimes that violate the kinship structures ofsociety, but in particular they are concerned with transgressions of the kind the matricide ;restescommits. [ $ ] /hey understand ustice to be identical with the reciprocal revenge ofa di' phoron !bringer of retribution".Athena echoes the )uries- sentiment virtually word for word when she establishes the law courtthat will finally render ustice and terminate the cycle of vengeance !M B NBR". She, too, urgesthe urors and the audience %not to cast fear utterly from the city,& nor to live in anarchy ordespotism, but according to a middle way that is best. 3et Athena cannot mean what the )uriesmean by justice, even though they use the same word. Why, then, do the )uries allow Athena toimpanel a ury that will decide the case in other than their terms and so against them? Surelysomething more is happening here than merely the inclusion of the )uries in a widerunderstanding of ustice. [ $! ] Athena !or Aeschylus" plays upon the shifting and multivalent senseof ustice at work in the trilogy. It is precisely this ambiguity in the meaning of di' that enablesAthena to establish the court against the better udgment of the )uries. Where the )uries











demand di' as reciprocal punishment, Athena offers di' as law court, as legal udgment. Shechastens the )uries with such shifting terms when she says %you wish to be called, not act, ust&!EDR". /hat Athena and the )uries each appeal to di' does not indicate, then, that they agree onits meaning. [ $$ ] In fact, given that the )uries violently oppose the decision for ac2uittal, we haveto conclude that even in the end, they do not abandon their sense of di' as reciprocalpunishment. Athena establishes the law court and institutes a new legal order over the protestsof the )uries by playing on the ambiguity of the term di' itself. Athena here has recourse to the

same strategy and tactics used by lytemnestra.:ven though Athena founds the Areopagus and in so doing fi(es a meaning for di' , her workwith respect to the )uries is far from over. *elieving themselves dishonored by the youngergeneration of gods who favored ;restes- ac2uittal, the )uries now rage against Athens,threatening to poison and blight the land and its inhabitants. /hrough a combination of patientpersuasion and discrete manipulation, threats backed by Qeus-s thunderbolts and sincerepromises, Athena charms the )uries into accepting the verdict and their new place asbeneficent metoi'oi of the city, as well as their transformed status as tutelary deities of thehomicide court. Athena-s is thus a victory of persuasive rhetoric'

I admire the eyesof #ersuasion, who guided the speech of my mouthtoward these, when they were reluctant and wild.

Qeus, who guides men-s speech in councils, was toostrong0 and my ambitionfor good wins out in the whole issue. !HNR NF"

4ust as the trilogy begins with Qeus Yenios !the god of guest friendship" and ends with QeusAgoraios !the god of public meetings", it begins with the forceful persuasion of lytemnestra andends with the forceful persuasion of Athena.

/he figure of Athena is also important to the resolution of the trilogy because she occupies anambiguous space in Athens-s se(ual economy. A female goddess, Athena votes for ;restes onse(ual grounds, for she is, as she says, %always for the male, with all my heart and strongly onmy father-s side& !NDN D ". 1oreover, descended as she is solely from her father, Qeus, Athenahas no mother and so has e(perienced none of the ties of commitment and continuity of place

the Oresteia traditionally associates with the feminine. 9ere she seems to validate Apollo-sargument for the primacy of the male as the %true& parent. 3et she is also a warrior and a virgin,and so doubly re ects the role of a woman in a patriarchal society. A trilogy that begins with

lytemnestra-s usurpation of Agamemnon-s power and prerogative ends with Athena-s owntransgression of the accepted boundaries of gender identification.*y now it should be clear that both in her ability to manipulate language and in her usurpation ofwhat were traditionally considered male roles, Athena recalls lytemnestra. *ut what are we tomake of such a disturbing association? 5oes Athena allied with lytemnestra undo all the workthat Athena allied with Qeus has accomplished? /he final play of the trilogy does conclude happilywith the establishment of a civic discourse and the integration of the feminine other into the city-ssocial order. 3et the play performed before the city it celebrates has depicted with immense forcethe internal tensions and oppositions of that discourse, not only in the clash of se(ual and social

interests but also in its challenge to the very possibility of the formulation of a civic language andse(ual order grounded in rational legal procedure. Already so full of transgressions andmanipulations, the Oresteia ends neither with the final restoration of a natural or %normal& ordernor with the unambiguous achievement of clear and transparent communication. A reconciliationbetween men and women is achieved, but it is achieved by a figure who embodies all thetransgressions of gender definition that the trilogy has sought to resolve. A civic discourse basedon rational legal principles is established, but by a figure who transgresses its norms, and bymeans that partake of the persuasive rhetoric of manipulation the trilogy has fought to mitigate.I therefore do not wholly agree with *rian >ickers when he argues, in reference to lytemnestra,that %the final stages of the Eumenides complete Aeschylus- e(orcism of her, a sustainedconcentration of moral disapproval rarely e2ualled in literature.& [ $%] If lytemnestra is e(orcised,then, as we have seen, she is also resurrected in the figure of Athena. /he man$woman

lytemnestra, who kills her husband, finds her counterpart in the god$goddess Athena, whosimilarly crosses the boundaries of gender definition. [ $& ] +or do I agree with 9. 5. ). Oitto thatthe Eumenides solves the problem of di' . [ $' ] If the achievement of the law court is to fi( ameaning for di' and so institute the shared civic language necessary to the polis, then the











integrity of that language is violated at the very moment it is established. /he figure that closesthe trilogy cannot but remind us of the figure who opens it. Athena-s association with

lytemnestra brings the Oresteia full circle, and so reopens all the negotiations the trilogy hadhoped to settle./here is one final way in which Athena recalls lytemnestra and the uncertaintyof Agamemnon, and so undermines the very order she, and by implication the Oresteia, strivesto establish. >ernant has commented on the refle(ive dimension of Aeschylus-s trilogy. In

particular, he has pointed out the manner in which the trial scene of the Eumenides invites theciti en$spectators to think of themselves as urors !a role with which they would be intimatelyfamiliar" and udge the actors, the actions on stage, and the overall performance itself. 9avingwitnessed a udgment on stage, the Oresteia asks its audience to reflect on the nature of

udgment by rendering a udgment about the activity of udging. ;n another level, however, thetrilogy reflects on its own activity in a decidedly more ambivalent fashion. I have been arguingthat the te(t turns back and in upon itself in a movement that resists closure and so thehierarchical organi ation of values—the creation of a center—that the narrative establishes. Itdoes so, in part, through its use of theatricality, by which I mean how the playwright callsattention to the performance itself as a theatrical spectacle. [ %( ] Aeschylus employs this techni2uewith surprising results in the Oresteia, most notably in the planning and e(ecution ofAgamemnon-s murder. I have already discussed that se2uence of scenes that culminate in theking-s fateful step upon the crimson tapestries and analy ed them in terms of gender reversaland the manipulation of language. /hat interpretation portrayed lytemnestra as something ofa strategos in her own right, one who confronts and defeats her enemy in battle. I want toe(amine that scene afresh, this time in terms of its theatricality, and link it up with Athena andthe trial of ;restes, in order to consider its significance for the trilogy as a whole.7ikening lytemnestra to a general positioning and directing her troops as if for battle is certainlya plausible reading of that fatal encounter. )ar more powerful, in this conte(t, however, is tounderstand lytemnestra in the role of a director, producer, or even playwright. She has preparedan elaborate scene, beginning with the system of signal fires, written a welcoming script forAgamemnon, assembled her deadly props, and even shown impatience when her maids misstheir cue and fail to spread the tapestries in a timely fashion. In this play within a play,

lytemnestra writes, directs, acts, and produces the murder of her husband, and she has beenmany years in the plotting.I have also noted how, through her persuasive rhetoric and her ambiguous se(uality, the figure ofAthena recalls lytemnestra. 9ere I want to point to a similarity between lytemnestra-s

%staging& of Agamemnon-s murder and Athena-s %staging& of ;restes- trial, a similarity that cutsacross other aspects shared by these two figures. /here are a number of ways in which the trial

%staged& by Athena recalls the dramatic theater of lytemnestra. )irst, a trial recalls the theaterin its physical aspects, with a udge and ury seated on a raised platform or %stage,& withtestifying witnesses entering and e(iting on cue, and with an audience of citi ens, all potential

urors, in attendance. Second, the progress of a trial is similar to a %plot& !in the sense of bothdrama and intrigue", where identity and character are e(posed, the truth about past or presentactions revealed, and where a verdict or udgment is rendered on the protagonist. In establishingthe Areopagus, calling the witnesses, selecting the ury and rendering the final decision, Athenawrites the script, directs the %action& and determines the outcome of ;restes- trial much as a

playwright or chor gos would do a tragic performance. Athena-s staging of ;restes- trial thusrecalls lytemnestra-s own elaborate staging in Agamemnon.*ut surely this pushes a point too far. After all, lytemnestra commits a murder, Athena merely

udges one. While I do not want to deny this important difference, I do want to emphasi e onceagain the method of persuasion that Athena employs and the ambiguous space she occupies,disturbing characteristics she shares with lytemnestra that also make it possible for her to endthe bloodshed. *ut what does this mean for the play as a whole? /he trilogy e2uates

lytemnestra, plotting, deceit, and verbal manipulation with being theplaywright producer actress of one-s own drama. /wo points follow from this. )irst, we are forcedto recall that theater itself relies on plots, plotting, illusion, deceit, and verbal ambiguity, in short,all of lytemnestra-s devices. [ %1] /his alone should cast some doubt on the ability of the tragedyto render clear and secure meanings. *ut when we associate those same elements with Athena,then the law court, the ustice it brings, and the Oresteia itself !and perhaps tragedy?" all sharethe same radical insecurities in regard to the stability of linguistic and se(ual categories that

lytemnestra-s theater so disturbingly conveys.







;ne reason the carpet scene is so powerful, and the trial of ;restes so awesome, is preciselybecause they, too, like a tragedy, are staged, and as such raise disturbing 2uestions about theability of the tragic performance itself to establish a reliable conte(t for communication. If thetheatricality of lytemnestra and Athena so easily manipulates Agamemnon and the )uries, arenot the spectators of the performance also susceptible to a similar manipulation by theplaywright and his play? /his further implies that as the Oresteia attempts to end the cycle ofblood vengeance by fi(ing a clear and unambiguous meaning for di' , it cannot escape or evade

the ambiguities, uncertainties, and difficulties of speech dramati ed by the play within the play. IfI am right about Aeschylus-s self$referential use of theatricality, then the Oresteia not onlyinterrogates the %success& of Athena-s founding, but also provides a powerful e(ample of man-sdrive to circumscribe the world in intellectual and rational terms and a similarly powerful e(ampleof the limitations of that attempt. [ %2]

/here is no final closure here, no unalloyed triumph of men over women, polis over oikos, newover old, what is chosen over what is inherited, reason over passion. <ather, the end of thetrilogy introduces a series of new transgressions that forces the narrative to turn back upon itselfin a destructuring movement that 2uestions the very foundations of its own accomplishment./hrough the figure of Athena, we have learned that the boundaries that constitute language andsociety are always already transgressed. [ %3] /his final scene of ambiguous reconciliation,orchestrated by such a parado(ical and ambivalent figure, should draw us up short and force usto reflect on the violence concealed by constructed teleologies and hierarchies that appear

%natural.& So much is true of the Oresteia itself' the trilogy also transgresses the %norms& of linguistic andse(ual order in the very act, and in the very space, in which it establishes them./he Oresteia surely institutes and legitimates a democratically constituted hierarchy of values,establishes norms of inclusion and e(clusion, and creates bonds of membership by drawingboundaries. *ut the trilogy also shows us how such boundaries are constituted, that they areultimately political, and that such limits are transgressed the very moment they are established./he problem of di' is not solved in the Eumenides, but the trilogy as a whole shows us that wecannot live without such !temporary" solutions. /he Oresteia lays bare the construction of thosesolutions as enabling fictions, calling attention to their incomplete nature and revealing to thespectators how a normal and normali ing order constructs the feminine as ab ect other, as thevery constitutive outside of its own possibility, even when such an order harbors the mostdemocratic of intentions. /he trilogy thus as much reminds the audience of the violent e(clusionsand subordinations that constitute the democratic city in which they live as it validates that city.In anticipation of all these reasons, this chapter began with the suggestion that no Greek tragedycould better illuminate the current controversy over democratic hopes and disciplinary reversalsthan Aeschylus-s Oresteia. /hat suggestion framed a series of reflections on the dilemma—incontemporary theory—over the intentions and effects of a democratically achieved consensus./he present contest over the meaning of democracy vacillates between the 2uest to instantiatenorms of consensus and the suspicion that such rationally achieved agreement is a regulativeideal, one more strategy that effectively masks the mechanism of power as it producesnormali ed and disciplined selves and citi ens for the effective functioning of the order. /hatchoice—between the regulative democratic ideal of critical theory and the endless genealogicalsubversion of democratic codes—was too narrowly construed and tended to resist any alternative

path through the unstable terrain of contemporary democratic politics. 3et if we are to respectdifference in our own increasingly heterogeneous and diverse society, and if we wish to preservethe preconditions of democratic governance as well, another route must be found. Aeschylus-streatment of the %feminine& as the constitutive other has been particularly helpful for illuminatinga politics of identity and difference and in charting the dangerous territory of a democraticpolitics. /he Oresteia, on this telling, can be made to yield a democratic politics of disturbancethat maintains a commitment to the ideals of democratic consensus even as it disruptsdemocracy-s normali ing effects. Such is Aeschylus-s contribution to the contemporary contestover the meaning of democracy./he central burden of this chapter has been to demonstrate that the Oresteia both celebrates thetriumph of a democratic civic discourse and e(poses the legacy of violence, e(clusion, andsubordination directed at the %feminine other& that accompanies that triumph. In a doublemovement, the trilogy articulates a positive vision of democratic life that seeks to disrupt anddisturb the forces of normali ation such a vision entails. /his reading of Aeschylus has indicatedthat such forces of disturbance persist right through to the trilogy-s very end !Athena as doublyambiguous", enabling the Oresteia to help formulate a democratic sensibility that relentlessly







politici es the founding e(clusions that constitute democratic practice !whether religious, culturalor se(ual", while at the same time providing a democratic identity and order against which tostruggle. /hat is one way in which the Oresteia negotiates the tension between a democraticcritical theory and a genealogical criti2ue of democracy./he Oresteia achieves this, of course, not by dissolving that tension, but by deepening it.5emocracy in the Oresteia re2uires the stable foundations of law grounded in rational legalprocedure' ustice as legal udgment replaces ustice as reciprocal revenge. 3et as we have seen,

genealogical criti2ue uncovers a democratic reason embodied in the newly founded law court thatis masculine in gender and founded s2uarely on women-s e(clusion from, and subordination to,the male$ordered polis. [ % ] 1oreover, that foundation is itself traversed by its own fault lines,irregularities that portend further seismic disturbances in the bedrock of democracy. As a figurewho already transgresses the very discursive and se(ual norms of the democratic polis she aimsto establish, Athena herself embodies the %parado( of founding& that 9abermas-s consensustheory of democracy seeks to evade. [ %! ] 5espite the celebratory and triumphant ending,the Oresteia constructs the meaning of the democratic founding, and so of democracy itself, asopen to further contest, struggle, and renegotiation. <ead this way, Aeschylus-s trilogy alerts usto the antidemocratic preconditions and practices of democratic rule and to the positive roleplayed by a %democratic politics of disturbance,& a politics that, like the disturbing transgressionsof lytemnestra and Athena, %pro ects new challenges to old relations of identity and difference,disrupts the dogmatism of settled understandings and e(poses violences and e(clusions in fi(edarrangements of democratic rule.& [ %$] Such a reading of the Oresteia indicates one way in whicha democratic critical theory and a genealogical criti2ue of democracy, if properly understood,might contribute to the formidable task of democrati ing difference.It might even be the case that what I have said about Athena and the Oresteia applies to tragedyas well. In the theater of 5ionysus, the citi en$spectators come to learn that the categories ofsociety are never as stable as they appear. 5uring a civic ritual that celebrates the city and itsdemocratic traditions, a play like Aeschylus-s Oresteia both participates in thatcelebration and radically disrupts the %normali ed& order it constructs.7et me end this chapter and preface the ne(t with Qeitlin-s characteri ation of 5ionysus, the godof tragedy, as a transgressor, a description that applies e2ually well to the figure of Athena' %/hismi(tureJis one of the emblems of his parado(ical role as a disrupter of the normal socialcategories0 in his own person he attests to the coincidentia oppositorum that challenges thehierarchies and rules of the public masculine world, reintroducing into it confusions, conflicts,tensions and ambiguities, insisting always on the more comple( nature of life than masculineaspirations would allow.& [ %%]

As much may be said about 1a( 9orkheimer-s and /heodor Adorno-s Dialectic o Enlightenment.

-otes

B. William onnolly, %5emocracy and /erritoriality,& &illenium* 1ournal o #nternational !tudies CR, D !BHHB"' ENN. K*A O L

C. I have used the ;(ford lassical /e(t of the Oresteia, ed. 5enys #age !;(ford' larendon #ress, BHNC", and unlessotherwise noted, I have used <ichmond 7attimore-s translation, vol. B of The $omplete Gree' Tragedies, ed. 5avid Grene and<ichmond 7attimore ! hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BHFD". ommentaries on Aeschylus that I have usedinclude Agamemnon, ed. 4. 5. 5enniston and 5. 7. #age !;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHFN"0 Oresteia, ed. George/homson !BHD 0 rev. ed. Amsterdam and #rague, BHMM"0 and Eumenides, ed. Anthony 4. #odlecki !Warminster, :ng.' Aris P

#hillips, BH H". K*A OLD. %/ragedy is, properly speaking, a moment,& >ernant writes. %)or tragedy to appear in Greece, there must first be a distanceestablished between the heroic past, between the religious thought proper to an earlier epoch and the uridical and politicalthought which is that of the city performing the tragedy& !4ean$#ierre >ernant, %Greek /ragedy' /he #roblems ofInterpretation,& in <ichard 1acksey and :ugenio 5onato, The 0anguages o $riticism and the !ciences o &an* The!tructuralist $ontroversy K*altimore' /he 4ohns 9opkins =niversity #ress, BHNRL, p. BD ". K*A O L

E. The !uppliants might be an e(ception, because it too concerns the use of persuasion ! peith ", a theme that is certainlydemocratic, although it does not reflect on the democratic order itself. K*A OL

F. In fact, a number of recent interpretations of the Oresteia take the structure of its mythic narrative as the most importantelement determining its meaning. I say more about this below. K*A OL

M. /hese events in the play allude to the :phialtic reforms of EMC EMB *. ., when the power of the Areopagus was curtailed,the franchise was e(tended, and a treaty between Argos and Athens was concluded. )or an attempt to sort out contemporaryallusions and specific references, see Anthony 4. #odlecki, The Political ac'ground o Aeschylean Tragedy !Ann Arbor'=niversity of 1ichigan #ress, BHMM", ch. F and esp. pp. R BRR. In The Gree' Discovery o Politics ! ambridge, 1ass' 9arvard=niversity #ress, BHHR", ch. F, hristian 1eier also sifts the evidence to assess the influence of contemporary events on thecomposition of the trilogy, but is more concerned with the political and historical conte(t in which Aeschylus wrote, so as todemonstrate how the Eumenides for the first time took up the problem of democracy and the political. K*A OL

N. A. 7esky, Gree' Tragic Poetry, trans. 1. 5illon !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH D", p. HR. )or a slightlydifferent view, see Oresteia, ed. /homson", rev. ed., B' FN. /he mythical archetype was thus concerned with the destinies of




























great families, whereas Aeschylus places the city, the threat of civil war, and possible ways of meeting this conflict at thecenter of interest. K*A O L

. ;n the significance of the #anathenaia, see George /homson, Aeschylus and Athens !+ew 3ork' International #ublishers,BHFR", pp. CHF HN. /he fact that once ;restes leaves the stage, no heroic persons remain further underscores the democraticfocus of the play. K*A O L

H. )or a slightly different interpretation, see 1artin ;stwald, %rom Popular !overeignty to the !overeignty o 0a"* 0a",!ociety and Politics in %i thC$entury Athens !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH M", pp. C EC. While ;stwald doesnot deny that the reforms of EMC EMB effectively %removed control over the magistrates from a once$powerful aristocratic bodyand handed it to agencies constituted by the people as a whole,& he does argue that much of this process had already begun

with the reforms of Solon. :phialtes, on this account, merely completed what Solon had initiated by abolishing the politicalpower of the Areopagus entirely !p. EC". K*A OL

BR. ;n the historical 2uestions concerning the Oresteia and the emergence of Athenian democracy, see 7eslie Ann 4ones, %/he<ole of :phialtes in the <ise of Athenian 5emocracy,& $lassical Anti>uity M, B !Apr. BH N"' FD NM0 O. 4. 5over, %/he #oliticalAspect of Aeschylus-s Eumenides, & 1ournal o +ellenic !tudies NN, B !BHFN"' CDR DN0 :. <. 5odds, %1orals and #olitics inthe Oresteia, &Proceedings o the $ambridge Philological !ociety B M, M !BHMR"' BH DB0 . W. 1acleod, %#olitics andthe Oresteia, & 1ournal o +ellenic !tudies BRC !BH C"' BCE EE. K*A OL

BB. 1eier, Gree' Discovery o Politics, p. HB. K*A OL

BC. I do not want to construe an e(act correspondence between the reforms of :phialtes and the solution achieved inthe Eumenides. /he references to the Argive alliance and the curtailment of the powers of the Areopagus to matters ofhomicide can be construed as Aeschylus-s support of the radical democracy0 likewise, the fact that Athena echoes the )uries-counsel to incorporate fear ! to deinon " in the new order, to avoid both anarchy and despotism, and to seek the mean can beunderstood as a protest against the democratic reforms. I find it more useful to interpret the trilogy as a reflection on both thegains and losses that attend the establishment of democracy. /his dissolves the 2uestion about the politics of Aeschylus, firstby focusing on the trilogy, second, by understanding it in a broader conte(t' the reforms of :phialtes might providean occasion for reflection, but they do not necessarily determine the course or outcome of that reflection. K*A OL

BD. I am aware, of course, that the conflict in the trilogy is not reducible to se(ual difference. 9owever, I agree with )romaQeitlin, %/he 5ynamics of 1isogyny' 1yth and 1ythmaking in the Oresteia, & Arethusa BB, B C !Spring )all BHN "' BEH B,that the conflict between the older and younger gods, between Greek and barbarian, is presented in terms of an oppositionbetween male and female. ;n misogyny in Greek myth and society, see #. :. Slater, The Glory o +era* Gree' &ythology andthe Gree' %amily !*oston' *eacon #ress, BHM ", and Sarah *. #omeroy, Goddesses, (hores, (ives and !laves* (omen in$lassical Anti>uity !+ew 3ork' Schocken *ooks, BHNF". K*A O L

BE. Although Aeschylus-s Persae does not e(plicitly challenge the masculine norms of public achievement and glory as doesthe Oresteia, it does describe the hardships suffered by women at home that attend the masculine pursuit of war. ;n this point,see 1ichael Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHNM", p. HB. K*A OL

BF. hristian 1eier, in his otherwise rather astute interpretation of the trilogy, misses the importance of gender altogetherwhen, commenting upon the significance of the role %accorded to the fundamental division between man and woman, which isso starkly emphasi ed in certain passages in the first part of the Eumenides, & he states that %in view of the fact that theproblem of man versus woman was not one that much e(ercised the Greeks, it is hardly likely to have constituted a centraltheme of the play.& /he real theme of the Oresteia is, rather, %the conflict of the Eumenides and its resolution as an e(pressionof political thought& ! Gree' Discovery o Politics, p. H ". K*A OL

BM. Oresteia, trans. 7attimore, pp. H. K*A O LBN. Simon Goldhill, Aeschylus* The Oresteia ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BHHC", p. FR. K*A OL

B . 9omer tells the story of ;restes piecemeal and by way of positive e(ample for ;dysseus and /elemachus. /he relevantpassages are Odyssey B.CH ED0 B.CH DRR0 D.CFE DBC0 E.FBE DN0 BB.ERF DE. K*A O L

BH. 9omer Odyssey D.DRE BR. K*A O L

CR. )or e(ample, Stesichorus, Simonides, and #indar. See 1acleod, %#olitics and the Oresteia. &K*A OL

CB. /his debate is largely animated by feminist scholars who challenge the traditional interpretations of the trilogy. /heir workcenters on the themes of narrative and se(uality. See Qeitlin, %5ynamics of 1isogyny&0 Aya *etensky,

%Aeschylus- Oresteia* /he #ower of lytemnestra,& Ramus N, B !BHN "' BB CF0 +ancy <abinowit , %)rom )orce to #ersuasion'Aeschylus- Oresteia as osmogonic 1yth,& Ramus BR, C !BH B"'BFH HB0 and Simon Goldhill, 0anguage, !e)uality, /arrative*The Oresteia ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH E". K*A OL

CC. See, e.g., *rian >ickers, %+ature versus perversion' /he Oresteia, & in id., To"ards Gree' Tragedy* Drama, &yth,!ociety !BHND0 +ew 3ork' 7ongman, BHNH". K*A OL

CD. 4ohn 9. )inley, 4r., Pindar and Aeschylus ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BHMM". In Aeschylus and Athens, /homson argues similarly, as do 9. 5. ). Oitto, %orm and &eaning in Gree' Drama !7ondon' 1ethuen, BHFM", 5odds, %1orals and #olitics in the Oresteia, & pp. BH CB, and #odlecki, Political ac'ground o Aeschylean Tragedy, pp. NF N , R C.9ugh 7loyd$4ones, The 1ustice o Keus !BHNB0 Cd ed., *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH D", is an e(ception. K*A OL

CE. )inley, Pindar and Aeschylus, p. CNN. K*A OL

CF. Qeitlin, %5ynamics of 1isogyny,& p. BEH. )or other feminist accounts, see, e.g., Oate 1illett, !e)ual Politics !Garden ity,+.3.' 5oubleday, BHNB", and 7. *amberger, %/he 1yth of 1atriarchy' Why 1en <ule in #rimitive Society,& in (omen, $ultureand !ociety, ed. 1ichelle <osaldo and 7ouise 7amphere, CMD R !Stanford' Stanford =niversity #ress, BHNE". K*A O L

CM. f. Oitto, %orm and &eaning, who claims that the problem of di' is solved. K*A OL

CN. Qeitlin, %5ynamics of 1isogyny,& does not, however, put it in precisely these terms. K*A OL

C . Ibid., p. BFR. K*A OL

CH. harles Segal, %Greek /ragedy and Society' A Structuralist #erspective,& in id., #nterpreting Gree' Tragedy* &yth, Poetry,Te)t !Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH M". K*A O L

DR. Ibid., p. CE. K*A O L

DB. Ibid. K*A O L

DC. >ickers, To"ards Gree' Tragedy, p. DNH, notes that the use of the optative in these lines comes to have the reverse effectintended. K*A O L

DD. Since the word the watchman uses, audB, means %to speak& or %to say& in connection with the utterance of an oracle,Aeschylus here places us immediately in the midst of the enigmatic and oracular, something in need of interpretation. K*A OL

DE. *etensky, %Aeschylus- Oresteia, & pp. BD BE. K*A OL














































































DF. Simon Goldhill, Reading Gree' Tragedy ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH M", p. H. K*A OL

DM. Ibid., p. BE. K*A O L

DN. See ibid., p. BR. K*A O L

D . ;ne way to etymologi e lytemnestra is as h 'luta m domen , an etymology that points to her skill or cunning in plotsand deception. See Etymologicum &agnum, ed. /homas Gaisford !B E ' Amsterdam' Adolf 1. 9akkert, BHMN", FCB, BNCR. K*A OL

DH. A slight modification in the pronunciation of this phrase yields gunai' apistein !a faithless wife", a pun that any actor, andno doubt the audience, would appreciate. K*A O L

ER. I do not want to push this too far' she then continues to employ the watchdog metaphor in direct relation to Agamemnon,so that when she professes kindness to the king and fierceness to his enemies, we know she means the contrary. K*A O L

EB. *etensky, %Aeschylus- Oresteia, & pp. BF BN, elaborates this interpretation concerning the core of lytemnestra-s paste(perience, which she now truthfully puts into speech, although to a devious end. K*A OL

EC. Goldhill, Reading Gree' Tragedy, p. BB. K*A O L

ED. ;n the spider image and use of nets, see <abinowit , %)rom )orce to #ersuasion.& K*A OL

EE. /he word Agamemnon uses— diaphtherounta —can variously be translated as %corrupt,& %seduce,& %destroy,& or %bribe&0 see9. G. 7iddell, <obert Scott, 9. S. 4ones, and <oderick 1cOen ie, A Gree'CEnglish 0e)icon !;(ford' larendon #ress, BHMB", p.EB . *ecause of the se(ual overtones of the e(change, I find %seduce& preferable, especially to 7attimore-s rather tepid %makesoft.& K*A OL

EF. As do the )uries themselves at Eumenides NN NH. K*A OL

EM. <. #. Winnington$Ingram, !tudies in Aeschylus ! ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH D", p. BRF. K*A O L

EN. Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama, p. HD. K*A OL

E . /wo interesting points come to mind here' first, seeing the world from another-s point of view, as lytemnestra does, istragedy-s singular, although not uni2ue, achievement. Second, 9annah Arendt defines political thinking as the ability to see theworld from the point of view of somebody else0 this she calls representative thinking !see Arendt, Eichmann in 1erusalem* AReport on the anality o Evil K+ew 3ork' >iking #ress, BHME0 repr., #enguin *ooks, BHNNL, p. EH". *ut like Agamemnon,

lytemnestra loses that capacity and sees only one side of a comple( issue. K*A OL

EH. /he list comes from 4. #eter :uben, The Tragedy o Political Theory* The Road /ot Ta'en !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton=niversity #ress, BHHR", p. NE. K*A OL

FR. Winnington$Ingram, !tudies in Aeschylus, p. HD. K*A OL

FB. <abinowit , %)rom )orce to #ersuasion,& pp. BMF MN. K*A OL

FC. See >ickers on the details of ritual parody, To"ards Gree' Tragedy, pp. DH HH. K*A O L

FD. Winnington$Ingram, !tudies in Aeschylus, p. BBB. K*A O L

FE. Ann 7ebeck, The Oresteia* A !tudy in 0anguage and !tructure ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BHNB", is themost complete, but see also <abinowit , %)rom )orce to #ersuasion& cited above. K*A O L

FF. ;ne other way in which Aeschylus achieves this transformation is to revise the myth of the 5elphic oracle-s foundation in away that anticipates the peaceful settlement that ends the trilogy. K*A OL

FM. In %orm and &eaning, pp. MF M, Oitto makes an interesting and persuasive, although not conclusive, case for eleven

urors' he notices that between lines NBB and NDD, Aeschylus has composed ten couplets and one triplet for a total of elevenverses. /his would indicate eleven and not twelve urors, a vote cast for each couplet, otherwise the playwright would have tosend two voters to the urn at once, which makes no stage sense. /he final triplet allows enough time for the eleventh uror togo to the urn and back to his seat, and then for Athena herself to approach the urn before beginning her speech. /his makesonstage sense for Oitto, but it does not clarify the ambiguity in the language of the te(t, where, at NEB, Athena says, in theoptative, %victory is ;restes- even if the votes divide e2ually& !7attimore-s translation interpolates %other votes& to convey thesense that there are twelve urors, but this is not what the te(t says", and again, at NFC, where she says %e2ual is the numberof ballots.& *oth phrases could include Athena-s vote, so I am inclined to read the human vote as against ;restes. K*A OL

FN. 5eborah <oberts, Apollo and +is Oracle in the Oresteia !GZttingen' >andenhoeck P <uprecht, BH E", p. NR. K*A OL

F . Ibid., p. NC. K*A O L

FH. /homson, Aeschylus and Athens, p. CN . K*A OL

MR. Winnington$Ingram, !tudies in Aeschylus, p. BCB. K*A O L

MB. To"ards Gree' Tragedy, p. ECF. K*A OL

MC. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. FB. K*A OL

MD. /he following discussion of Athena follows that of Goldhill, Reading Gree' Tragedy, pp. DR DB. K*A O L

ME. Aeschylus downplays the fact that if ;restes did not avenge the murder of his father, the )uries would pursue him for hisnegligence. K*A O L

MF. /his inclusionary thesis is the argument of 9. 5. ). Oitto, Gree' Tragedy* A 0iterary !tudy !BHMB0 Fth ed., 7ondon'1ethuen, BHN "' HE F, #odlecki, Political ac'ground o Aeschylean Tragedy, pp. N NH, and /homson, Aeschylus and

Athens, p. C H. K*A OL

MM. /hough this is the conclusion of 7loyd$4ones, in 1ustice o Keus, Cd ed., pp. HE HF. K*A O L

MN. *rian >ickers, To"ards Gree' Tragedy, p. ECD. K*A OL

M . ;n the importance of lytemnestra for an understanding of Athena, see Winnington$Ingram, !tudies in Aeschylus, BRBDB. K*A OL

MH. Oitto, Gree' Tragedy !BHMB", p. HF. K*A OL

NR. ;n theatricality, see harles Segal, %/ime, /heater, and Onowledge in the /ragedy of ;edipus,& in Edipo* #l teatro greco ela cultura europea, ed. *runo Gentili and <oberto #retagostini !<ome' :di ioni dell-Ateneo, BH M", p. EMDff., and )roma I.Qeitlin, %#laying the ;ther' /heater, /heatricality and the )eminine in Greek 5rama,& in /othing to Do "ith Dionysus@ AthenianDrama in #ts !ocial $onte)t, ed. 4ohn A. Winkler and )roma I. Qeitlin, MD HF !#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress,

BHHR". K*A O LNB. See Qeitlin, %#laying the ;ther,& pp. B D on plots, deceit, and intrigue in Greek tragedy. K*A OL

NC. 9ere I paraphrase Segal in %/ime, /heater, and Onowledge,& p. EMD. Although Segal is describing the theater of Sophocles,I think his description applies e2ually well to the Oresteia. K*A O L












































































































ND. /his is part 2uotation and part paraphrase of Goldhill, 0anguage, !e)uality, /arrative, p. C B. K*A OL

NE. /homson, Aeschylus and Athens, p. C , goes so far as to say that %Aeschylus regarded the subordination of women !2uitecorrectly" as an indispensable condition of democracy.& K*A O L

NF. ;n the place of gender in 9abermas-s work, see +ancy )raser, %What-s ritical about ritical /heory? /he ase of9abermas and Gender,& in %eminism as $riti>ue, ed. 5rucilla ornell and Seyla *enhabib !+ew 3ork' <outledge, BHHR", pp.DB FM. K*A OL

NM. onnolly, %5emocracy and /erritoriality,& p. END. K*A OL

NN. Qeitlin, %#laying the ;ther,& p. MM. K*A OL

$. onc*usion

The Tragedy of ritica* Theory

/here is no document of civili ation which is not at thesame time a document of barbarism.

/he une(amined life is not worth living.

A book that takes the tale of ;edipus-s tragic fate as a paradigmatic e(pression of the ambiguous

relationship between human intelligence and power that characteri es ages of enlightenmentappropriately concludes by looking at 1a( 9orkheimer and /heodor Adorno-s Dialectic oEnlightenment. 3et the images of light and darkness, sight and blindness that pervade the twote(ts, Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos and 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic, only partially ustifymy pairing of a Greek tragedy with a near$contemporary work of critical theory. Since Greektragedy !and theory" seems otherwise helplessly unrelated to critical social theory, I should saysomething more about the reasons, internal both to Dialectic and to my own pro ect, that invite,if not compel, such a favorable comparison. I have already mentioned Dialectic -s tragic sensibility,the tragic history of its authors, and the way in which it establishes a dialogue between Greektragedy and the modern enlightenment. *ut there are other strategic, structural, and thematicreasons for pairing a work of critical theory with Greek tragedy. [ 1 ]

/his book ends with a chapter on 9orkheimer and Adorno in order to redeem a promise made atits start. hapter B framed the subse2uent readings of Greek tragedy and philosophy in theconte(t of a recent and ongoing contest over the meaning and legacy of the :nlightenment. Itdeliberately u(taposed classical and contemporary te(ts in an effort to initiate a dialoguebetween the two that would chart an alternative route through the shifting terrain of!post"modernity and so encourage reflection on submerged or neglected theoretical and practicalpossibilities of the moment. /hat u(taposition sought to reappropriate the way in which Greektragedy brought its past on stage in order to illuminate and redefine the contours of its present.3et that u(taposition has been as much a prolegomenon to a dialogue between classical andcontemporary theory as the conducting of one. *ecause Dialectic embodies direct similarities—both substantive and structural—with Greek drama and theory, it makes e(plicit what has thusfar remained implicit in my argument and thereby achieves the dialogue between tragedy andenlightenment that I seek.Another reason for ending this book with a chapter on 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic has to

do with my claim that contemporary theory ought to become more like Greek tragedy andclassical political theory. /he collaborative work of the critical theorists is paradigmatic in itsdistinctive ability to hold the contradictions of modernity in productive tension—to think withthose contradictions in order to think through them. /hat ability derives, of course,from Dialectic -s appropriation of the style, structure, and te(tual strategies of Greek tragedy andpolitical theory. 7ike the best works of Athenian literature and philosophy, 9orkheimer andAdorno-s book negotiates the dilemmas, perple(ities, and ambiguities present within enlightenedthought, the construction of theoretical discourses, and the search for ultimate foundations in away that deepens, rather than dissolves, the riddles it seeks to comprehend. )or these reasons!further elaborated below" I find this early work by 9orkheimer and Adorno—if read in termssupplied by Greek tragedy and classical political theory—to be superior to 9abermas-sreconstructed critical theory and )oucault-s genealogical criti2ue, models of criticism that tend topolari e, dissolve, then dismiss the very contradictions 9orkheimer and Adorno regard asfundamental to thinking through !in both senses" modernity. /his concluding chapter thus takes9orkheimer and Adorno-s collaborative work as e(emplary, a paradigm for contemporary criticaltheorists to emulate and imitate. [ 2 ]






















Although I treat Dialectic as e(emplary for thinking a !post"modernity in tension with itself, thebook is not without its own limitations, blindnesses, and evasions. +otorious for their rigidlydismissive criticisms of popular culture !culture as industry", 9orkheimer and Adornocountenance only a high modernist culture and art that in its form and content resists anddestabili es the commodification and homogeni ation that pervades late capitalist culture. 3etcritical theory-s re ection of the popular surely forecloses one of the more promising avenues ofpolitical practice opened up by the politics of cultural difference and popular resistance currently

available today. ;ne way to reestablish closer relations between theory and practice might bethrough ust such a politics of everyday life, at the level of the production and consumption ofcultural commodities. /hrough an appeal to the ambivalent boundaries apparent in Greek tragedybetween high and low culture, cultural production and cultural consumption !a tension that9orkheimer and Adorno fail to e(ploit", I turn their re ection of popular culture against the criticaltheorists themselves. /hat e(clusion then becomes instructive for a democratic politics ofresistance that seeks to confront and contest an all$too$pervasive system of commodified culture.In spite of 9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s insistence on the seamless functioning of the cultureindustry—and their wholesale dismissal of the popular— Dialectic contains within itself theresources to retheori e the political possibilities of popular culture, in which the commodities thatconstitute it are, not merely the congealed residues of domination, but sites of contest and fieldsfor struggle over cultural meanings. 9orkheimer and Adorno would no doubt resist such an illicitappropriation of their work, but I am convinced that as an attempt to seek out locations andpractices of resistance to, and disruption of, the system of administered pleasures, it remainstrue to the radical impulse of the critical theorists. Although I shall have some critical things tosay about 9orkheimer and Adorno-s book, its sense of the tragic, its ability to encompass thecontradictions, dilemmas, and perple(ities of enlightenment, its uncompromising commitment tocritical thought, and its openness to critical revision all lend it paradigmatic status as a book thatis particularly good to think with, and through, while negotiating the unstable terrain ofpostmodernity.

• • •As an indication of Dialectic -s ability to think the dilemmas of postmodernity in tension, let mereturn to a few of the themes raised by 9abermas and )oucault and subse2uently elaborated inthe plays and dialogues, and so bring the book back to its beginnings. 9orkheimer and Adorno

share 9abermas-s concern with communication and the community it makes possible. /hey are insearch of a language ade2uate to a world indelibly marked by the advent of concentration camps,a language that has not been thoroughly devalued, debased, or replaced by the methodistic logicof a wholly instrumentali ed reason fit only to serve blind domination. :(iles themselves, theauthors of Dialectic e(perienced both the literal and metaphysical homelessness of modernsociety their book describes. 9orkheimer and Adorno thus remind us of the tremendous andirreparable damage wrought by modernity, which 9abermas recogni es but too oftenforgets. Dialectic continually invokes the lives that have been damaged, lost, or destroyed, thee(periences that have been repressed, sub ugated, or smoothed over by the functionalistcoherence of a system that must either e(pand or perish. 7ike watching Greek tragedy,reading Dialectic is an e(perience in re$membering. [ 3 ]

3et in spite of their radically critical stance and heroic intransigence in the face of %damaged life,&9orkheimer and Adorno do not so much offer solutions to cure our ills as they raise newproblems and pose new 2uestions. Where 9abermas would solve the parado( of enlightenment,9orkheimer and Adorno deepen it0 where 9abermas seeks a method that would clarify all that ismysterious, ambiguous, and opa2ue about our lives and the world, 9orkheimer and Adornosearch out mystery, discontinuity, and the irruption of the une(pected as so many e(amples andacts of resistance against increasing systemati ation. +or is this merely a matter of substance' itinvolves rhetorical style as well. Although wary of instrumentali ation, 9abermas nonethelessfavors a technically streamlined language that reflects his preference for transparent analysis anddiscursive knowledge. 9orkheimer and Adorno, on the other hand, embody and honor the poeticimage as well as the theoretical concept. In this regard, Dialectic echoes the philosophical poeticsof Aeschylus and Sophocles and the poetical philosophy of #lato as much as it anticipates thecritical theory of 9abermas. 9orkheimer and Adorno understand all too well that surface clarity isoften purchased at the e(pense of the richness, diversity, and depth of human e(perience. /he

ironic inversions, tragic reversals, and playful u(tapositions that mark Dialectic contrast all toosharply with the prose of a reconstructed critical theory that threatens to bring about the overlyadministered world the theorist seems to fear. [ ]







dialectic between identity and difference, 9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s analysis of systemsthinking, and the reversion of civili ation into savagery all recall themes familiarfrom Oedipus* the metaphor of incest that dominates the play0 ;edipus-s peculiar ability to solveriddles, save for those that pertain to himself0 and the reversal of his status from highest tolowest in the city, from king to scapegoat. Since I discuss these themes at length in the presentchapter, I do not want to say any more than necessary here, save to observe that 9orkheimerand Adorno are appropriately compared to Sophocles because their work comple(ly embodies a

heroic steadfastness, coupled with respect and honor for an infinitely comple( world.Insofar as Dialectic urges enlightened thought to reflect on its own contradictions and consider itsrecidivist element, 9orkheimer and Adorno emulate Socrates- philosophical practice. Socratespersistently admonished his fellow citi ens to think about what they were doing both in and toAthens. Dialectic shares this commitment to thought and aims to nourish the %theoretical faculty,&a faculty threatened with e(tinction. /he problem with enlightenment is that it gives itself over toa method that is inimical to thought as such. If, as the authors say, in the correct application ofmethod, the answer is already decided from the start, then there is no mystery and no desire toreveal mystery. :nlightenment ruthlessly e(tinguishes the awe and wonder that accompaniesmultifaceted e(perience and prompts a Socrates to become philosophical in the firstplace. Dialectic is thus Socratic, not only in its admonishment to self$reflection, but also in itssurprise at, and interest in, the multiplicity and multivocity of the world.

Since 9orkheimer and Adorno warn against reason-s imperialism—its desire both to know all andcommand all—they implicitly adopt the 5elphic in unctions %Onow thyself& and %+othing ine(cess.& 7ike the poets, politicians, and craftsmen e(amined by Socrates, enlightened thoughtdeceives itself into thinking it possesses a knowledge of the whole that in fact it does not.9orkheimer and Adorno warn against mistaking partial for complete knowledge and thuse(cluding from view what falls outside of a %system.& /hey encourage their readers to reflect onthe course of enlightenment as both intellectual operation and historical actuality. /hey areconvinced that salvation lies only in our ability to reflect on the implicit patterns, structures, andassumptions that inform what we are doing to ourselves and to the world. 3et even as9orkheimer and Adorno ask enlightened thought to %enlighten& itself about its own identity,methods, motives, and intentions, they remain aware that %enlightenment& can be as dangerousas the mythic forces it seeks to dispel. When they insist that %false clarity is only another namefor myth0 and myth has always been obscure and enlightening at the same time,& [ &] the authorsof the Dialectic share the Socratic insight that all communication necessarily involves deceptionand self$deception as the condition of its possibility and the motivation for its activity. +or do9orkheimer and Adorno confuse thought with enlightenment0 rather, they try to redefine themeaning of enlightenment and rescue it from self$destruction, much as Socrates attempted toredefine the meanings of citi enship, piety, and wisdom throughout his life.7astly, a tone of deep political and theoretical pessimism pervades Dialectic, recalling Socrates-own heroic, yet pessimistic, allegiance to, and defiance of, Athens. World events had forced9orkheimer and Adorno to abandon hope in revolutionary theory and pra(is. [ ' ] In response to acontemporary crisis, Dialectic re ected the proletariat-s transformative mission and the theorythat elaborated it. 9enceforth, 9orkheimer and Adorno would address themselves to %animaginary witness.& 1oreover, recent developments had revealed, not the revolutioni ingpotential of scientific and technological advances, but the integrative and repressive power of a

reason that too readily became the obverse side of domination. 9orkheimer and Adornoconcluded that %in the present collapse of bourgeois civili ation not only the pursuit but themeaning of science has become problematical.& [ 1( ] In the face of totalitarianism on the left aswell as the right, the authors of Dialectic nonetheless remained steadfastly committed to thetradition of enlightened thought by means of their criti2ue of enlightenment. Dialectic heroicallyattempts to incite thinking and preserve those 2ualities in things and people that makedistinctions, and hence udgments, possible in an era that would li2uidate all thought andthinking individuals alike. 7ike the condemned Socrates before his udges, the authorsof Dialectic stood before the tribunal of history, condemned as anachronisms that could onlyimpede %progress.& 7ater, Adorno would reflect on ust such a %failure& of philosophy' %#hilosophy,which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to reali e it was missed.& [ 11 ] /heheroic steadfastness of 9orkheimer and Adorno in the face of defeat by the seeminglyanonymous administration of men and things made their philosophy tragic philosophy.In #lato-s Republic, Socrates holds out the hope of a reconciliation between knowledge andpower, an epistemological and practical unity in which either philosophers become kings or kingsphilosophi e !ENDd". 9orkheimer and Adorno pro ect a similar desire for a utopian moment of











reconciliation between reason and reality. /hat moment they found present as unfulfilled longingin the fundamental document of Western civili ation, 9omer-s Odyssey, and symboli ed in thelure of the Sirens- song. /he need for freedom and home, however, proved stronger than thedesire for eternal happiness, a desire ;dysseus fulfilled by renouncing it. +evertheless, theauthors suggest that freedom from domination re2uires universal reconciliation with nature' %*yvirtue of the remembrance of nature in the sub ect, in whose fulfillment the unacknowledgedtruth of all culture lies hidden, enlightenment is universally opposed to domination.& /he

reconciliation of reason and nature that eradicates domination is no less fleeting and offers nomore of a final resting point, respite, or closure than the momentary reconciliation betweenpolitics and philosophy pro ected in the Republic. 1oreover, a final reconciliation would signify aunity no less totalitarian than the social and cultural uniformity enlightenment itself aims to bringabout. Suspecting its own desire for a reconciled totality, Dialectic %issued no reassuringproclamation that Ithaca had been sighted,& hristian 7enhardt observes. In a time when thoughtcan dissolve domination, 9orkheimer and Adorno say, %enlightenment becomes wholesaledeception of the masses.& [ 12 ]

/o the e(tent that 9orkheimer and Adorno occupy themselves with the suffering of the individualin what they call the %system& !understood both conceptually and socially", Dialectic oEnlightenment reintroduces Aeschylus-s concern with the fate of the other in a putativelydemocratic society. <ooted in a radical fear of the unknown, systems thinking turns differenceinto hierarchy, while simultaneously e(cluding whatever does not conform to its own ideal.[ 13 ] 9orkheimer and Adorno thus wrestle with the problem of the individual as social other, who,in the midst of the uniform collectivity, suffers from the false identity of society and individual. Itis the task of critical theory !at least as that is understood in the Dialectic " to permit this %other&to speak, to lend a voice to suffering, and so to truth. /o be sure, ancient playwright and criticaltheorists place their accents differently' where Aeschylus-s legendary heroes and heroineschallenge the norms of the democratic order from the center of the city and during its mostimportant religious festival, 9orkheimer and Adorno give voice to the other from a place of

%permanent e(ile,& [ 1 ] disrupting the hegemonic system from its boundaries and margins. Andwhere the heroine of Aeschylus-s Agamemnon remains a liminal figure, parado(ically defining thenorms of her society even as she defies them, modern mass democracy attempts to banish theother !and tragedy" by integrating it into the architecture of its own uniformity !although9orkheimer and Adorno themselves stand apart from, even as they are a part of, the tradition

they critici e". )inally, where Greek tragedy had ultimate and assuring recourse to the boundedworld of stage, orchestra, and theater, the critical theorists pursue a dialectical high$wire act intheir attempt to maintain the tension between an increasingly uniform collectivity and %thedevelopment of autonomous, independent individuals who udge and decide consciously forthemselves,& these being the %precondition for a democratic society.& [ 1! ]

9orkheimer and Adorno never tire of insisting that social freedom is inseparable from enlightenedthought, but they consistently resist the %temptation to transparency& that characteri es allenlightenment, especially in its modern, positivistic incarnation. We must render modernrelations of domination visible and legible, for the workings of power must not, and—given theavailable technologies of surveillance, discipline, and control—cannot, remain impenetrablyobscure. 3et the ealous 2uest for complete transparency as a response to fear of the unknownother becomes a further means for reducing the comple(ity of the world and the irony of action

in it, elements that democratic politics cannot do without. /hat is one reason why, inthe Eumenides, although Apollo-s arguments apparently %win& the case for ;restes, the;lympians, and the male, Aeschylus leaves no doubt that the %solution& is achieved arbitrarilyand not without a measure of violence, and that the newly won order is a fragile and precariousachievement, susceptible to pressures that will irreparably fracture it. /his temptation totransparency is also why 9orkheimer and Adorno refused to theori e !and so ob ectify" a conceptof rationality. In their refusal, however, they succeed 2uite well in articulating the ambiguity,irony, and comple(ity of language that lends a civic discourse its life in the first place. If there issuch a thing as a poetics for a democratic politics, Dialectic, despite its almost willful obscurity,approaches that goal somewhat like Aeschylus-s Oresteia.)inally, 9orkheimer and Adorno-s deployment of %effective history,& their %untimely& use of thepast, recapitulates the way in which Greek tragedy used its own archaic past to illuminate andredefine the contours of the present. ritical theory can teach us how we might similarly %use&the classical te(ts of tragedy and philosophy to do the same. /he authors of Dialectic appropriatethe style and sensibility of classical literature and philosophy in order to make the unprecedentedaspects of modernity intelligible, yet in so doing they retain their distinctively modern concerns











and purposes. *y u(taposing the mythical past with the enlightened present, archaic barbarismwith the most recent phenomena, Dialectic embodies and imitates all the tensions andambiguities that characteri e a tragic performance, a philosophical dialogue, and a modernity atodds with itself. When 9orkheimer and Adorno insist upon the necessity of moral language andresponsible action in the face of linguistic devaluation and the anonymous administration of menand women as things, they appeal to a fundamental teaching of the tragic theater that stillinforms political thinking today' [ 1$ ] we are forced to speak and act in a world we never made,

and to bear responsibility for our words and deeds.All this suggests that 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic e(emplifies how the themes, style, andlanguage of Greek tragedy can provide a point of reference and a source of inspiration fortheori ing in and about the present. As I have indicated, this means reading a work ofcontemporary theory in terms provided by Greek tragedy, and as a modern tragedy, a tragedy ofenlightenment. /o do so, I shall elaborate a number of affinities, first in structure, then incontent, and finally in aim, between Greek tragedy !as represented by Sophocles- Oedipus "and Dialectic, seeking to give substance to my claim that the thought of the classical polis cannourish the contemporary theoretical imagination in a way that will help us think with andthrough the perple(ities and contradictions of postmodernity.

• • •

*ystructure

I mean not only the obvious characteristics of a work-s form—whether it be a play, adialogue, a novel, or a treatise—but also its style, sensibility, and tone0 the kinds of images ituses and evokes0 the te(ture of its language and the architecture of its composition0 therhetorical strategies it employs to persuade its readers !or audience" and the way in which theseform$al elements work with or against a te(t-s e(plicit or surface argument.Dialectic o Enlightenment recalls the structure, style, and sensibility of Greek tragedy in anumber of different ways. [ 1%] )irst, unlike a philosophical or theoretical treatise, but like tragedy,it embodies the form of a drama or dramatic dialogue. Dialectic -s vital principle, 9orkheimer andAdorno assert, is %the tension between the two intellectual temperaments con oined init.& [ 1& ] /he two different voices united in the book achieve the plurality of positions, viewpoints,and arguments that define tragedy-s concern with moral communication and debate. 1ultiplevoices lend Dialectic a certain multidimensionality, which contributes to an open$ended andongoing, rather than a declamatory, authoritative, or monologic, model of communication. *ypresenting multiple positions, and so multiple points of engagement, 9orkheimer and Adornoencourage the reader to %enter critically and actively into the give and take of debate much as aspectator of a tragedy is invited to reflect about the meaning of events onstage.& [ 1' ] Dialectic thus asks the reader to take sides and make udgments, ust as tragedyencouraged its spectators to udge the action of the characters in a drama. 9orkheimer andAdorno, of course, ask us to reflect on the meaning and conse2uences of enlightenment and

udge them for ourselves.In tragedy, great and heroic deeds or terrible suffering are called forth as responses to real lifeevents and crises. [ 2( ] /heoretical reflection in Dialectic is likewise a response to a lived crisis offundamental importance. As a response to the rise of fascism in :urope, the Stalini ation of therevolution in <ussia, and the commodification of everyday life in the =nitedStates, Dialectic attains an immediacy and urgency usually lacking in %ob ective& theoretical

te(ts, yet present in Greek tragedy. /ragedy also makes plain the stakes involved in humanaction and debate, providing a set of motivations for entering into debate or pursuing a course ofaction by revealing how and why characters undertake a discussion and what sorts of problemscall forth reflection. [ 21 ] Dialectic similarly shows us the stakes involved in theoretical reflection./hird, like tragedy, 9orkheimer and Adorno suspect any attempt to construct a single, unitary, orcomprehensive account of the world. [ 22 ] Dialectic is concerned to %display to us the irreduciblerichness of human value& [ 23 ] against social forces that would reduce both humans and theirvalues to problems of economic e(change and bureaucratic administration. /ragedy sought topresent the %comple(ity and indeterminacy of the lived practicalsituation,& [ 2 ] and Dialectic likewise honors the particular, the individual, and the concrete in allits comple(ity and suspects overly general, abstract, determinate, and reductionist accounts thatsimplify the world. /he ancient playwrights and the authors of Dialectic share 1ichel )oucault-ssuspicion of total or global theory./he architecture of the book further reflects this concern with concrete particulars and thesuspicion of unitary, hierarchical, and functionali ing knowledge. omprised of a number ofmutually referential essays and subtitled %#hilosophical )ragments,& Dialectic breaks off





















inconclusively in a series of notes and drafts. /he aphoristic structure of the work thus reiteratesits concern with the particular fragment and individual detail and further reinforces its warningagainst succumbing to the tyranny of the kind of knowledge that would unify all e(perience. *uta fragmentary style is not necessarily fragmented, and neither does it signify a lack of theoreticalcoherence. 7ike the best Greek tragedy, which simultaneously denies and presents the world aspossessing an intelligible meaning, the philosophical fragments of Dialectic are mediated by athematic unity that make it an e(cellent e(ample of the very order it supposedly re ects.

[ 2! ] 9orkheimer and Adorno have managed to create a theoretical form that achieves thediversity within unity that has always eluded enlightenment itself.)ourthly, Dialectic shares with Greek tragedy the form of an elenchus, or cross$e(amination.[ 2$ ] As in a play that charts the course of a character-s most confidently asserted claims abouthimself and the world around him, claims that further developments subse2uently prove wrong,9orkheimer and Adorno show us how enlightened thinking blinds itself to the meanings andconse2uences of its own achievements and how its grasp of, and control over, practical problemsis irreversibly deflated. In their narrative, enlightenment follows the course of a tragic reversal'its unreflected assumptions about its own truth and value are undermined. <eason may oncehave promised the sub ect control and mastery, but now it ruthlessly controls and masters thesub ect itself.7astly, and perhaps most important, 9orkheimer and Adorno work as much through theoretical

argument as through poetic images, associations, tones, te(tures, and sensibilities that evokethe %passional knowledge& of Greek tragedy. 7ike tragedy, Dialectic engages not only our wits butour passions, appealing as much to the power of our emotions as to the power of our reason. /oread Dialectic as a tragedy means to read it as lament at the tremendous destruction wrought bymodernity. If, as Aeschylus reali ed, the passional knowledge of tragedy is the kind that comesthrough suffering, then the wisdom contained in Dialectic is truly tragic.

• • •+ot only do the ubi2uitous images of light and darkness, sight and blindness that pervadeSophocles- Oedipus invite sustained comparison with 9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s Dialectic, thereare other, more systematic and substantive reasons as well why no classical te(t betterilluminates a contemporary one. *oth Dialectic and Oedipus focus on the ambiguity of man-spower to control his world and manage his life by intelligence, and both consider that issuethrough the themes of civili ation and savagery and identity and difference.As we saw in chapter C, one dominant theme in Sophocles- Oedipus is the fine line that separatescivili ation from savagery, the city from the wild, enlightenment from myth. ;edipus is theparadigmatic civili ing hero, a man who uses the powers of intellect and reason to van2uish thethreat of undifferentiated chaos. *y solving the riddle of the Sphin(, ;edipus triumphs overuntamed nature0 with his solution, he enthrones %man& as the measure of all things, and himselfas master of /hebes. When ;edipus boasts that he destroyed the death$dealing Sphin( alone andwith unaided intellect, he asserts that rational mastery of the world upon which all the greatestachievements of Greek civili ation were thought to rest. 3et ;edipus transgresses the veryboundaries he seeks to establish. )or all his civili ing power, ;edipus remains a creature of thewild, unable to banish the %nature& within himself. <escued from the mountain fastness of

ithaeron, he becomes a beast himself, killing his father in the wild, committing incest at the

very hearth of the city, finally banished from the human community that nurtured him. ;edipus ishimself a savage, a destroyer of civili ed values and the city that embodies them, his will andintellect mortal threats to the hard$won human order of the polis.*y dramati ing the dialectic of civili ation and savagery, Sophocles suggests that civili ation is aprecarious achievement and its reversion to savagery a persistent and imminent possibility, if notan inescapable reality. 9uman intellect and reason possess the power to lift us out ofnature and return us to barbarity. In the case of ;edipus, the assiduous and unwaveringapplication of reason reveals not only human progress but bestial regression as well. :very step;edipus takes in his search for the murderer proves the power of his intellectual progress to bethe progress of a tyrannical power. <eason and the mastery it brings constitute the obverse sideof a savage tyranny. All the achievements of human civili ation centered on ;edipus %come toreflect the ambiguity of man-s power to control his world and manage his life byintelligence.& [ 2%] ;scillating between intellectual mastery and ignorance, between godlikeomniscience and fateful resignation, ;edipus lacks an appropriately political kind of knowledge.In terms of the play as a whole, this means a collective and deliberative, rather than a singularand analytic, knowledge0 one that is simultaneously active and shaping and passive and









receptive, a knowledge that reflects on the conditions of its own possibility and heeds its mortallimits. ;edipus and /hebes, however, lack the kind of knowledge tragedy itself inculcates in itsciti en audience. [ 2& ] As long as they do, they are bound to repeat an endless pattern of incest,trapped within the ine(orable dialectic of civili ation and savagery. [ 2' ]

9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s book also concerns the dialectic between civili ation and savagery,reason and tyranny, enlightenment and myth. /he authors of Dialectic o Enlightenment sought

%nothing less than the discovery of why mankind, instead of entering into a truly human

condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism.& [ 3( ] /hey confronted the simultaneity ofmaterial progress and social regression' what the authors characteri ed as the indefatigable self$destructiveness of enlightenment. Oant had laid the philosophical foundations of a purelyformalistic reason0 Sade and +iet sche, the %black writers of the bourgeoisie,& [ 31 ] mercilesslyelicited the implications of enlightenment by insisting that formalistic reason is no more closelyallied to morality than immorality and by denying the possibility of deriving from reason anyfundamental argument against murder0 but it was 9itler and the fascists who broughtenlightenment to its logical conclusion in a return to outright barbarism.

onsistent with the central thesis of their book, 9orkheimer and Adorno interpret the 9olocaustas a deadly combination of myth !anti$Semitism" and enlightenment !bureaucratically andrationally organi ed mass murder", the savage reversion of civili ation into barbarism. /hatrationalism should culminate in collectively legitimated mass murder was not an isolated

anachronistic irruption of savagery into modern civili ation but the crystalli ation of its organi ingprinciple. /he %irrationalism& of anti$Semitism proceeds from the %nature of thedominant ratio itself, and the world which corresponds to its image.& [ 32 ] /he thesis thatcivili ation and savagery are ine(tricably linked finds tragic testimony in the methodicallyadministered destruction of whole nations. [ 33 ]

=nlike GyZrgy 7uk[cs, on the left, and Oarl #opper and )riedrich von 9ayek, on the right,9orkheimer and Adorno sought the cause for the destruction of all civili ed values—for barbarismon a hitherto unprecedented scale—in the triumph of scientific method and its e(tension into, anddomination over, all spheres of life. [ 3 ]

Where 7uk[cs argued that the commodity form and the reification it necessarily brings arespecific to capitalist economic organi ation, both #opper and 9ayek blamed socialism and thelabor movement' #opper because 1ar(ism had replaced the %piecemeal social engineering& ofliberalism with historicism and utopianism0 9ayek because socialism had introduced the ideas ofplanning and state intervention into the successful functioning of competitive capitalism. *utfascism does not only become possible as a result of the wholesale reification of society, througheither the market or centrali ed planning. +or is it merely the truth of a liberalism stripped bareto reveal the naked ine2ualities and oppression inherent in the apparently free e(change of themarket. <ather, fascism parado(ically embodies elements of both myth and enlightenment. In itsattempt to free men from the imperatives of nature, it enslaves them to a second nature. /hefault lies as much with the methods of the natural sciences !the practice of systemati ation" andtheir counterpart in epistemology !logical positivism" as with the market and capitalist relationsof production !although domination certainly intensifies under these latter historical conditions".9orkheimer and Adorno radically 2uestion the pursuit of both unreflective science and systematiclogic and attempt to e(pose the structure of formal reason as a structure of domination and sounderstand the entwinement of enlightenment and myth, of reason and madness, that

accompanied German fascism./hey pursue one aspect of this dialectic between enlightenment and myth by suggesting aconnection between the intellectual mastery of nature and tyranny over men and women.<eason, which once worked by concepts and images, now refers to method alone. Indifferent tothe 2ualitatively and individually uni2ue, insensitive to multiplicity and particularity, [ 3! ] impatientwith tradition and history, as well as with religion, metaphysics, and philosophy, the dominationof discursive logic in the conceptual sphere tends to domination in actuality. /he aim ofenlightenment is the subsumption of all particulars under the general, %the substitution offormula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive.& [ 3$ ] *ut all systems of knowledgeobscure as much as they reveal, e(clude as they include, foreclose human possibilities as theydisclose the secrets of nature and enslave the sub ects they originally intended to liberate. *lindto the course of its own progress, enlightenment pays for each and every advance in material

production with the increased impotence and pliability of the masses. /he unprecedentedincrease in economic productivity of all kinds promises greater social ustice, yet the technicalapparatus and the groups that administer it %assume a superiority disproportionate to the rest ofthe population. :ven though the individual disappears before the apparatus which serves him,





















that apparatus provides for him as never before.& [ 3%] #romising the sub ect control and mastery,enlightenment ruthlessly controls and masters the sub ect. If enlightenment aimed originally atfreeing man from fear of mythic powers, it has replaced those archaic forces with a new myth ofthings as they actually are in order to ustify a correspondingly new kind of terror. )ear ofdeparting from the charmed circle of facts—terror of the unknown and hatred of the unknowable—identifies the modern self with its archaic counterpart. :nlightenment behaves like Sophocles-;edipus' it liberates the species from the aweful power of nature, but it also brings with it a new

plague. *oth remedy and poison, savior and destroyer, civili ed and savage, farsighted in itscommanding vision yet blind to the ambiguity of its own identity, actions, and conse2uences,enlightenment is not only deinon !awesome, terrifying", but pharma'on !remedy, poison" as well./o the e(tent that Dialectic is concerned with the self$destruction of enlightenment-semancipatory intent and with the precarious divisions that separate civili ation from savagery, itrecalls the moral udgment of Sophocles- Oedipus. In their attempt to make Auschwit intelligible,9orkheimer and Adorno evoke the moral sensibility of tragedy, where the poverty of currentlinguistic e(pression proves inade2uate to the unprecedented nature of the new barbarism.Adorno used to speak of a %universal conte(t of guilt,& a phrase that alludes to the impossibility ofcompleting anything in the spirit in which it was conceived. +o matter how generous or radicalthe intent, our best plans go wrong. We act in order to e(tricate ourselves from the ravages ofenlightenment in its capitalist and fascist phases, only to entangle ourselves in them ever moredeeply. 7ike ;edipus, we continually reinforce the power of a fate whose hold we seek to break.:ven when the traditional theories of virtue have collapsed under the weight of rationalistskepticism, when we ought to, but cannot, do anything right, we still must act and be udged forour actions. Dialectic refuses to abandon the moral language of guilt and responsibility at a timewhen the force of fate, congealed in the logic and power of immense economic and bureaucraticsystems, seems unassailable. 9orkheimer and Adorno anticipate another German migr ,9annah Arendt, who looked to the moral language of Greek tragedy in order to understand theunprecedented nature of the 9olocaust. Insisting that :ichmann be tried for his specific deedsand not his motives, Arendt reiterates the tragic self$ udgment of ;edipus' we are responsible forour particular deeds, no matter how generously, nobly, or—as in the case of :ichmann—howindifferently they are conceived. [ 3& ] /he authors of Dialectic and Arendt agree with Greektragedy that we must decide and act in a world we never made, and that such decisions andactions are tragic.

hapter C also considered in detail ;edipus-s problem$solving mentality. 9is answer to theSphin(-s riddle, %It is man,& reveals a uni2ue ability to apprehend unity amid the multiplicity offorms, to organi e the data of e(perience rationally. ;edipus reduces all %problems& of differenceto their lowest common denominators, the better to solve them. Impatient with multiplemeanings, diverse or contradictory voices and plural points of view, he imposes his unitary visionon the world to the e(clusion of varied and variegated possibilities. /he unity he achieves is,however, attained at the e(pense of the plurality that makes a polis possible in the first place. *yinsisting that words and the world have only one meaning0 by reducing the comple(ity andfle(ibility of language0 by diluting the richness and harmoni ing the differences within /hebesitself, ;edipus threatens to li2uidate the distinctions that constitute the city he sets out to save.9orkheimer and Adorno-s book also wrestles with the dialectic between identity and difference,uniformity and individuality, the one and the many. /hey e(plore that dialectic through a

consideration of enlightenment-s will to unity, the production of a uniform and characterless %mass& culture, and through the problem of %system& in both theory and practice./he :nlightenment-s tendency to reduce the many$faceted and contradictory nature of e(perienceto a singular unity apprehensible under the laws of formal reason already finds its e(pression inthe ancient enlightenment. 4ust as Yenophanes derided the multiplicity of deities as so manyfalse pro ections of man himself, 9orkheimer and Adorno said, the most recent school of logicdenounced the words of language as false coin better replaced by neutral counters. [ 3' ] %;n theroad to modern science men renounce any claim to meaning&' there is no difference between thetotemic animal, the dreams of the ghost$seer, and the absolute Idea. /he rich multiplicity offorms is reduced to position and arrangement, history to fact, things to matter. Science, guidedby method, %makes the dissimilar comparable by reducing it to abstract 2uantities. /o theenlightenment, that which does not reduce to numbers, and ultimately to the one, becomesillusion0 modern positivism writes it off as literature.& [ ( ] )rom #armenides to *ertrand <ussell,unity is the slogan' %/he destruction of gods and 2ualities alike is insisted upon.& [ 1 ] /he modern:nlightenment, replete with e(perimental science, formal logic and advanced method—all of













which provided a schema for the calculability of the world—brought to fruition the e(tirpation ofdistinctions that the disenchantment of nature had always sought.:nlightenment, however, is as democratic as the logic it employs. +ot only are 2ualities dissolvedin thought, but %men are brought to actual conformity as well.& [ 2 ] /hose who are not find theirway into %total& institutions that increasingly resemble society itself. [ 3 ] Whether through themarket or the state apparatus that protects its clients from the dislocations caused by the former,our society is ruled by e2uivalence. %We were given our individuality as uni2ue in each case,

different to all others, so that it might all the more surely be made the same as anyother.& [ ] :2uivalence, e(change, abstraction—all tools of enlightenment—treat individuals asdid fate, the notion of which they re ect' they li2uidate them. /he false unity of the individual andthe collectivity nevertheless shows through. /he more homogeneous society becomes, the moreits members are sub ected to the repetition, standari ation, and uniformity of productive andadministrative processes at all levels and in all spheres of e(istence, the more that societydisintegrates. %1en are once again made to be mere species beings, e(actly like one anotherthrough isolation in the forcibly united collectivity.& [ ! ] #arado(ically, 9orkheimer and Adornomight argue, we are a community of isolates./he regression of enlightenment to ideology !myth" evident in the products of mass culture gives9orkheimer and Adorno occasion for reflecting on the demise of autonomous art !tragedyincluded" and on the corresponding abolition of the individual. [ $ ] /he late modern counterpart to

the tragic world of the Greek theater is the %culture industry.& [ %] =nlike Greek tragedy, however,that industry aims, not to encourage moral reflection, invigorate substantive debate, or elucidatethe distinctions that make udgment possible, but rather to stultify, stupefy, and create a

%culture& of unthinking, pliable masses. /he products of the culture industry have lost any powerto contradict the audiences- e(pectations, 2uestion their norms of thought, or challenge theirstandards of intelligibility. ulture industry commodities have little or no critical function./elevision, music, and film all encourage an attentive, but essentially passive, passionless, anduncritical reception, which they induce through patterned and predigested products' programswatch for their audiences as popular music hears or those who listen. [ &] 1ass$mediated culturalproducts thus reproduce and strengthen, rather than 2uestion, e(isting social and culturalboundaries. /he result is not an image of society rent by contradiction, but the false identity ofsociety and individual that urges the smooth integration of the latter into the former. If anypassion is evinced, it is a passion for identification. In the conte(t of culture as industry, tragedy,which once meant protest, now means consolation.Where Greek tragedy valued and displayed the irreducible richness and comple(ity of human life,enlightenment treats culture as the ancient tyrant treated /hebes' science disproves the oldoracles of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy daily0 increasing social differentiation andtechnological speciali ation produce chaos, while the culture industry %now impresses the samestamp on everythingJ)ilms, radio and maga ines make up a system which is uniform as a wholeand in every part.& [ ' ] /he culture industry obliterates distinctions and refuses to produce orsanction anything that in any way differs from its own rules, its own ideas about consumers, andabove all itself. It makes everyone the same, collapsing plurality and individuality into unity,uniformity, and anonymity, thereby destroying rather than sustaining the distinctions anddifferences that Greek tragedy !and a democratic politics" necessarily presuppose. /he cultureindustry promotes that reduction in thought and society against which Sophocles warned' the

incestuous repetition of the same that forever turns back and in upon itself, a repetition andstandardi ation devoid of the e(ogamous relations and energy necessary to revitali e a people ora culture.3et the authors of Dialectic are 2uick to point out that mass culture does not shrink fromsuffering' %/ragedy made into a carefully calculated and accepted aspect of the world is ablessing.& [ !( ] If %tragic& suffering is to be shown, it must be integrated in such a way that thesystem can profitably use it. /ragedy thus becomes an institution for moral improvement, ust assuffering ustifies the world that made it necessary. /ragedy has to resemble fate and is reducedto the threat to destroy anyone who does not cooperate with the higher powers' %/ragic fatebecomes ust punishment for those who resist becoming whatever the system wants.& [ !1 ] /heculture industry discards tragedy by integrating both it and the individual. /he substance ofGreek tragedy is the opposition of its heroes to society. /he need to identify, to fit in, to findrefuge in the collectivity remain unfulfilled in ancient tragedy, and the tension between hero andsociety is unresolved. ;edipus and Antigone both defy the conventional codes of theircommunities and suffer for it. /oday, the %miracle of integration& has brought such would$beheroes into line' the individual must find refuge in society by identifying with it and renouncing























his or her individuality. /he tension in tragedy dissipates into the false identity of society andindividual. Where Greek tragedy refuses final narrative closure and keeps the %individual& alive,the productions of the pleasure industry affirm reconciliation and refuge and thereby defeattragedy. )or 9orkheimer and Adorno, such a %li2uidation of tragedy confirms the abolition of theindividual.& [ !2 ]

While I certainly do not want to deny the integrative power of administered en oyment in latecapitalism, I do want to suggest that Dialectic only tells half the story of the culture industry, that

this evasion flows from currents deep within the book !if not within the authors themselves", andthat the resources for theori ing forms of popular resistance to commodified culture reside withinthe spaces between tragedy and enlightenment marked out by Dialectic itself.Irredeemable elitists, cultural mandarins, bourgeois intellectuals, insufferable high modernists—these are a few of the more and less pe orative epithets deployed by students of popular,democratic culture and practice against 9orkheimer and Adorno. /hese critics rightly sense thecritical theorists- hostility to virtually all forms of the popular, but mistakenly interpret thatsentiment as simply antidemocratic or elitist. <eflecting on the eclipse of the critical, thinkingpublic, which was unable to resist the advances of mass culture, Adorno summed up the effectsof the culture industry as, in fact, antidemocratic' %It impedes the development of autonomous,independent individuals who udge and decide consciously for themselves. /hese, however, wouldbe the precondition for a democratic society which needs adults who have come of age in order

to sustain itself and develop.& [ !3 ] :ver fearful of fascism, 9orkheimer and Adorno critici ed theculture industry precisely for its undemocratic aspects. In Dialectic, they looked to Greek tragedyas an e(ample of the kind of cultural production able to provide the thoughtful, critical citi ensthat contemporary democracy re2uires. 3et the forms, sites, and sub ects of popular resistance tothe commodity system that produces those sub ects have proliferated in recent years !no doubtin ignorance of the accomplishments of Greek tragedy", opening the Dialectic -s antidemocraticinterpretation of the pleasure industry to radical, populist revision.*ut how are we to e(plain 9orkheimer and Adorno-s hostility to the popular forms of en oymentof the time !9ollywood movies, musicals, a , radio, maga ines", and their barely concealedcontempt for those who en oy them? I want to suggest that the pre udices of !especially"Adorno-s social and cultural milieu—:uropean bourgeois intellectual and high modernist aestheticsensibility—fail to e(plain the central position cultural criticism occupies in Dialectic and otherworks of critical theory. :nforced e(ile in a city as apparently barbaric as 7os Angeles !whitherAdorno had followed 9orkheimer, who had left +ew 3ork for health reasons" might account formuch of Adorno-s personal hostility to popular culture, but his criticisms are rooted more deeply,and more systematically, in the theory-s conceptual apparatus. /he concept of reification isAdorno-s central interpretive category for decoding the presence of congealed power in culturalproductions and so in society. Adorno deploys that concept in order to e(pose those structures ofa cultural product as homologous to structures of social domination. 9ence the followingcontemptuous denunciation of a ' %<ebelling feebly, they are always ready to duck, followingthe lead of a , which integrates stumbling and coming$too$soon into the collective march lock$step.& [ ! ]

In this e(ample, Adorno-s decoding of culture as commodity unproblematically maps the meaningof the reified product !song, movie, advertisement" onto the social structure itself' identical,indistinguishable mass$produced and fetishi ed products must also signify identical,

indistinguishable, mass$produced %individuals& sub ect to the power of the fetish they themselveshave created. ommodities stamp their falsely individuali ed imprint on their consumers, whononetheless see through the deception. /his criti2ue of the culture industry, a criti2ue thatproceeds from the concept of reification, focuses e(clusively on the meaning ofcultural production, ignoring the e2ually important meaning of cultural consumption. While thisproductivist bias in the analysis of cultural commodities does lead to a supple disclosure of theintegrative power of late capitalist commodity production, it simultaneously occludes from viewthe proliferation of possible sites and spaces where the cultural meanings of these commoditiesmight be !re"appropriated in order to resist, contest, or subvert the imperatives of thecommodity system. While it is certainly true that culture as commodity possesses integrativeforce, like any artifact of culture, the products of the culture industry are ob ects whose meaninge(ceeds—surpasses—the intention of the producer. /he products of the pleasure industry take onmeanings of their own once they reach the street. /hat surplus meaning—the meaning producedby the subcultures who appropriate it—only becomes visible with a shift of focus !which Adornorefused" away from production and toward the many and varied uses to which culturalcommodities are sub ected by those who purchase them.









)rom this perspective, the commodities of the culture industry lose some of their integrative,repressive power, and the une(pected uses to which subcultural or countercultural groups putthem appear as sites and e(amples of resistant and rebellious sub ectivity. Without romantici ingthis form of cultural power, we must be alert to the ways in which the commodities of the cultureindustry constitute a site of struggle over meanings, out of which new selves, new sub ectivities,and sometimes new political possibilities are !re"fashioned. Shopping malls, video arcades,bebop, hip$hop, 1/>, and 1adonna all have their subversive, countercultural uses, which often

resist the seemingly irreversible transition to fully administered en oyment. #leasures, bodies,and desires are the central elements in this struggle over meanings, elements not so differentfrom those already found in the Sirens episode analy ed by 9orkheimer and Adorno. In thatscene from 9omer, the pleasure$consuming ;dysseus !allegory for the later bourgeois en oymentof art" must tie himself to the mast, renounce his freedom, his en oyment, and himself as heimpotently listens to the Sirens- song. ontemporary consumers of culture are infinitely moreimaginative than their archaic and bourgeois counterparts in contesting the predeterminedmeanings of the culture system' they give up the rational strategy of an ;dysseus forthe tactical raids of the !sub"urban guerrilla in order to bend received cultural meanings, conteststructures of domination, and resist the inertia of cultural commodification from deep withinenemy territory.*ut how can Dialectic be made more responsive !and more responsible" to the possibilities ofcultural resistance that reside in the surplus meanings generated by the users of culturalcommodities? /hat possibility lies in loosening its dependence on a theory of cultural productionby teasing out the strands of Greek tragedy that undermine the critical theorists- valori ation of

%high& culture. /he ambivalent cultural dynamics of Greek tragedy—tragic drama as popularentertainment as well as autonomous art form—provide an instructive and ironic parallel to thepopular culture 9orkheimer and Adorno re ect. Such a reappropriation of Greek tragedy by theforces of the popular constitutes a subversive undertaking that is no less an abandonment of arational strategy for a tactical raid than that performed by a host of today-s resistant and!re"fashioned selves. It amounts to reading Dialectic against itself and against its conclusions, tosearching out meaning and possibilities in the te(t that eluded the authors.Greek tragedy, as we have seen, provides the authors of Dialectic with a model of critical politicaleducation' by portraying heroes and heroines who refuse assimilation into the system or thesystem-s categories, by representing a society rent and fissured by contradictions, Greek tragedyconstitutes for the critical theorists an e(emplary form of cultural resistance to the integrativepowers of a mass democratic society that is one step away from fascism. What 9orkheimer andAdorno-s account of tragedy elides, however, is the radically popular nature of ancient dramaticfestivals and performances and the ambivalent position of the playwrights in regard to culturaltransmission.)irst, the plays were sub ect to audience approval in the form of a competition and so werere2uired to negotiate the distance between providing cultural criti2ue and popular entertainment.#lays were successful largely to the e(tent that they combined both these elements. /heperformances, themselves, then, were sites of popular struggle over cultural meanings. /heplaywrights engaged, not only in an agon among themselves for first pri e, but in a contestwhose parameters were bounded by the re2uirements of the art form and popular tastes—anagon constituted by their relationship to the popular audience.

Second, the productivist paradigm of cultural commodification describes Greek tragedy no betterthan it describes contemporary popular culture. /he tragedians stood in a decidedly ambivalentstructural relation to their culture' they were never merely producers of a critical discourse thatcould be directly mapped onto an Athenian society that did not measure up to its standards. /heplaywrights were also cultural %consumers& of a sort, of the ancient myths and legends thatconstituted !and reconstituted" the popular cultural traditions of the city. 7ike the consumers ofcontemporary popular culture, the tragedians purposefully remade and refashioned the culturalproducts available to them. /hose reappropriations of the myths and their reworking in tragedymust be seen as acts that contest and transform received cultural accommodations andmeanings, that resist and destabili e potentially homogeni ing cultural constructions. Aeschylus,for e(ample, not only problemati ed such binary categories as male female, Greek barbarian,reason passion, and new old, but also rewrote the ancient myths to bring previously elided2uestions of gender and public power on stage. )rom this perspective, a Greek tragedy likethe Oresteia appears as a site of struggle over social and cultural meanings, as a product ofculture that, in the hands of the playwright, e(emplifies the ongoing process of making andremaking cultural meanings, much as the products of the culture industry are refashioned by the



rebellious and resistant selves who appropriate them in a myriad of ways never intended by theproducer.In turning Dialectic against itself, in forcing it against its intent to yield a !grudging" valori ationof !some aspects of" popular culture, my reading nonetheless remains true to its vocation ofresistance. What makes the book such a powerful work is its tenacious subversion of alltheoretical, political, and narrative closures, its resistance to integrative systems and conceptsthat attempt to order reality without remainder. 9orkheimer and Adorno would no doubt resist

my own tactical raids on the boundaries they draw between high and low culture, on thedistinction they make between the productions of the pleasure industry and the pleasuree(perienced in consuming those products in ways that surely were never meant. :ven so, thepolitical possibilities that emerge from the newfound sites and practices of resistance, contest,and renegotiation that accompany the contemporary refashioning of the postmodern popular anddemocratic sub ect are true to the deepest impulses of a critical theory dedicated to empoweringforms of difference and resisting the power of conceptual and social conformity. [ !! ]

9orkheimer and Adorno further elaborate the dialectic between identity and difference, uniformityand individuality, with reference to what they call the system. In the tradition of the Western:nlightenment, from 5escartes and 7eibni to Oant, reason refers to the unified organi ation ofdata' rationality re2uires the consistent and coherent construction of concepts. /his unity,consistency, and coherence is the system. =nity resides in agreement' %/he resolution of

contradiction is the system in nuce. & [ !$ ] Since there is to be complete harmony, uniformity, andhomogeneity among the elements of the system, thought as such is reduced to the creation ofunified, scientific order and the derivation of factual knowledge from principles. /hinking mustmake system and perception accord by reconciling the antagonism between the general and theparticular, the concept and the facts. 4ust as the facts are predicted from the system, so mustthey also confirm it. All systems are closed and e(clusionary.9orkheimer and Adorno regard 9egel-s philosophy as an e(ample of a closed system, despite hisdialectical criti2ue of Oant. In the anticipatory identification of history and philosophy—totality insystem and society—9egel contravenes his own prohibition against making the conscious resultof the whole process of negation into an absolute. [ !% ] +onetheless, systems interpret the worldand in that regard are necessary components of our lives. /hey call for an orderly organi ationand presentation of e(perience, without which we could not survive. *ut more often than not,systems claim their concepts to be ade2uate to their ob ect. /hey claim to have identified it fully.In systems thinking, there is a kind of paranoia to embrace the whole' a system tolerates nothingoutside of itself. )ear of the unknown, of departing from the rigid organi ation of facts, proves tobe the psychological principle behind the :nlightenment penchant for system. [ !& ] *ut reality doesnot go into its concept without remainder. Systems inevitably enter into conflict with the %ob ects&they purport to grasp. /he multiplicity of 2ualities disappears in the system, only to return laterto contradict it. 9istory defies systems, as the fate of 9egel-s philosophy demonstrates and thedialectic of enlightenment attests. If history does have any unity, it is not given by anysystematic construction but by suffering. [ !' ]

onceptual systems find their homologue in society. /he tendency in contemporary socialinstitutions toward total organi ation is the historical counterpart to systemic thinking0 theparticular is subsumed under the general concept as the individual is subsumed under the %plan.&

%*eing is apprehended under the aspect of manufacture and administration. :verything—even

the human individual, not to speak of the animal—is converted into the repeatable, replaceableprocess, into a mere e(ample for the conceptual models of the system.& [ $( ] Individuals areinterchangeable parts in an economic and bureaucratic apparatus bent solely on self$preservation. /he difficulty is to make sense of the world of people and things while doing it theleast violence, a task Sophocles- Oedipus dramati ed in all its tragic dimensions. 9orkheimer andAdorno similarly both construe and deny the kind of thinking that allowed ;edipus initially tosave /hebes and subse2uently to threaten it with ruin. /heir alternative to systems thinkingresembles what Arendt called representative thinking, the capacity to think from the standpointof somebody else. [ $1 ] /his capacity is precisely what conceptual !and social" systems deny, sincethey treat their constituent elements as ob ects rather than as sub ects' %/o be an ob ect also ispart of the meaning of sub ectivity0 but it is not e2ually part of the meaning of ob ectivity to be asub ect.& [ $2 ]

Systems are thus theoretical and political problems, which helps e(plain why Dialectic is sodifficult to read, and why it has been so ruthlessly critici ed as both a theoretical and political %failure.& If the point is somehow to avoid the chaos that the complete absence of systeminduces and the collapse into unity and uniformity that a total system re2uires,



















then Dialectic pursues a number of strategies to this end. I have already mentionedhow Dialectic consciously avoids a language that would too easily accommodate itself to currentlinguistic and conceptual conventions as an act of resistance against the system0 how the twovoices con oined in the te(t practice the dialogue it recommends0 how the emphasis it places onspecific 2ualities, individual characteristics, and uni2ue distinctions re ects the tendencies towardsystematic unity in theory and society0 how the structure of the book, a whole composed offragments, reiterates and performs the authors- concern to achieve a plurality within unity0 and,

finally, how, by looking to the archaic sensibility and language of tragedy, Dialectic finds there asource of energy to reinvigorate our theoretical and political language. In these various ways,9orkheimer and Adorno attempt to mediate the distance between two poles of an irreconcilabledialectic, between too much unity and too much diversity./here is another way, however, in which Dialectic mediates between the poles of identity anddifference. :arlier, I argued that the disintegrating structure of Dialectic reiterated its theoreticalclaim concerning the transition to the world of the administered life. ;n another level ofarticulation, the structural armature of the work deliberately checks its theoreticaldirection. Dialectic seems to offer a systematic or %total& criti2ue of rationali ation. 3et ifrationali ation, as actuality and ideology, is total, how can the authors know it? 9ave they noteffectively conceded defeat by relin2uishing the ground on which to base their claims? Whatcritics see as a contradiction or impassable aporia in theory construction, [ $3 ] I see as a deliberatete(tual strategy to undermine the book-s own impulse toward total criti2ue and so avoid preciselythe premature closure its critics fear. Dialectic offers a comprehensive criti2ue of reason and atthe same time deliberately dismantles the very theoretical totality it forwards. It is precisely thestructure of the book, its disintegration into fragments, that 2uestions its own substantive claimsand opposes the impulse toward totali ed criti2ue. [ $ ] /he structure of Dialectic reverses thedirection of its theoretical intentions by oining in opposition two ways of pursuing social criti2ue./he disintegrating structure of the book thus reverses its theoretical claims in order to reversethe reversal of enlightenment itself.

• • •1y final reason for reading the Dialectic in terms of Greek tragedy has to do with a set ofintentions and strategies they share. I am referring here to the way in which both use the past inan %untimely& fashion in order to raise timely 2uestions about the cultural and political regimes

they respectively inhabit. Greek tragedy performed this critical task in at least two ways. )irst, it u(taposed dramatic content to ritual conte(t. As part of a religious festival, a tragic performancewas an occasion for the city as a whole to %reconsecrate, remember and rededicate itself tosustaining its traditions of collective life.& [ $! ] 3et the content of the dramatic performancesradically challenged the accepted traditions in which the ritual was embedded. /ragedy presenteda world torn by conflict and contradiction. In the language of structural anthropology, all thecodes—ritual, religious, se(ual, familial, and political—are either inverted or violated. /heacceptable relationships between parents and children, men and women, rulers and ruled, publicand private, citi en and foreigner are all strained to the breaking point. /ragedy suspends thenormal intelligibility of the world and so calls forth reflective 2uestioning concerning the orderthat is given us and that we create.Secondly, tragedy e(pressed an ambivalent and critical attitude to the city-s presently constituted

order through the formal structure of the performance itself, through the tension between thetwo elements that occupied the tragic stage. ;n one hand, there was the chorus, representingthe collectivity of democratic citi ens0 on the other, opposite it, there was a legendary warriorking like ;edipus, representing the heroic and mythical past. [ $$ ] /he u(taposition of presentdemocratic citi enship, represented by the chorus of trained citi ens, and past heroic kingship,embodied in the aristocratic ;edipus, 2uestioned present democratic achievements and pastdynastic beginnings alike. A second set of oppositions also cut across the first. Where the citi enchorus chanted its songs in the archaic lyric of a past heroic age, a legendary warrior king like;edipus spoke his lines in the contemporary idiom of Athens. #ro ected into the mythic past,;edipus embodied the character and performed the deeds of a legendary king, while seeming tospeak and act in the immediate present. /hrough such u(taposition in the formal structure of theplay, Sophocles refused to glorify the past, even as the play turned the present into a problemthat the past could illuminate from within the tradition of a public festival.Dialectic likewise suspends its readers between past and present in a way that neither glorifiesthe former nor reifies the latter, even as it positions itself within the tradition it critici es.9orkheimer and Adorno u(tapose past and present, myth and enlightenment, by reading











domination in a society organi ed by capitalism !whether in its liberal, monopoly, or statistphases". In fact, most of Adorno-s cultural criticism !his musicology, for instance" aimed atdecoding structures of social and economic domination congealed in various aestheticproductions. 9is analyses, however, did not seek to establish a causal mechanism betweeneconomy and culture. <ather, his process of decoding sought to illuminate both the content andthe form of a cultural work as homologous to a structure of domination in society. /he keyconcept of reification—no less operative in the present conte(t—was Adorno-s central interpretive

category for understanding modern society in both its capitalist and fascist stages. It is toreification, e(change, and the commodity form to which Dialectic now turns in order to completethe critical u(taposition of archaic to modern society.At the midpoint of the e(cursus on 9omer, therefore, lie the concepts of e2uivalence andcommodity e(change nascent in the archaic practice of sacrifice' %While economic e(change maybe viewed as a seculari ation of sacrifice, it is e2ually true that sacrifice is the magical prototypeof rational e(change.& [ %3] Dialectic here u(taposes the commodity system of present$daycapitalism to the archaic practice of sacrifice in order to reveal the irrationality of the former.;dysseus proves himself capable not only of deceiving the gods about what he owes but also ofintelligent bargaining to reduce his liability. %/he benevolence of the deities is e(pected to havesomething to do with the speci ic magnitude of hecatombs&' sacrificial offerings are not whollye(changeable. ;dysseus cunningly e(plores the elasticity of that magnitude, thereby releasingthe price system of mythical sacrifice from its rigid structure and sub ecting the mythical contractto the %forces of the market.& /he bourgeois principles of e(ploitation through substitution!e2uivalence" are thus already well entrenched in the mythical world of the epic. ;dysseusmerely enlarges the scope of those principles through deceit and enlightened bargaining, thereby

%e(posing the relativism inherent in the notion of e2uivalence& and demystifying the %natural&mechanism of e(change. [ % ]

/he 9omeric epic also enacts the transformation of sacrifice into self$sacrifice and so provides apresentient allegory of bourgeois renunciation. /he sacrifice to which ;dysseus sub ects himselfin the Sirens episode, %the denial of nature in man for the sake of domination over non$humannature and over other men,& [ %! ] already points to the loss of freedom men and women wille(perience in an e(cessively technici ed and rationali ed world. ;dysseus-s encounter presentsthe parado( of triumphant reason familiar from Oedipus* %1an-s domination over himself, whichgrounds his selfhood, is almost always the destruction of the sub ect in whose service it isundertaken0 for the substance which is dominated, suppressed and dissolved by virtue of self$preservation is none other than that very life as functions of which the achievements of self$preservation find their sole definition and determination' it is, in fact, what is to bepreserved.& [ %$] :nlightenment, whether archaic or modern, turns back and in on itself in aparado(ical process of loss' the practice of self$renunciation gives away more of life than it givesback. /he mastery of nature is paid for in self$repression and the repression of others' ust as;edipus virtually destroys the city he set out to liberate, and ;dysseus both saves and wastes hislife and the lives of his crew, so too does enlightenment threaten with destruction that which itset out to preserve./hroughout the first %:(cursus& on the Odyssey, 9orkheimer and Adorno u(tapose archaicelements to modern phenomena. /he discovery of self$denial, repression, the sublimation ofinstincts, and renunciation through self$sacrifice in 9omer evoke in us a highly ambivalent

attitude. We cannot denounce them without denouncing ourselves, yet we surely want todisassociate ourselves from the cruelty and barbarism of the archaic past. *ut that is preciselywhat 9orkheimer and Adorno will not allow. When we consider our own present, it appears aswholly barbaric and irrational as the remote past of the epic. Dialectic u(taposes the archaic pastto the most recent historical developments in order to show that %the social situation of modernman is strikingly dissimilar yet reminiscent of the first attempt to survive by establishing an orderbased on reason.& [ %%] /heir strategy thus works in two directions at once' it aims to free us froma reified present in which political and economic structures appear natural and it works againstany nostalgic return to a falsely ideali ed past. 9orkheimer and Adorno critici ed contemporaryreason as myth while they simultaneously presented historical progress as the return of the

%ever$identical,& as a new disposition of myth. /hey pointed to the most recent history !anti$Semitism, fascism, monopoly capitalism" as a regression to archaic barbarism, and interpretedthe epic of the Odyssey as an e(pression of the most modern, with ;dysseus as the %prototype ofthe bourgeois individual.& /he u(taposition of the archaic past to the events of the present is no undialectical attempt %tofollow the !largely effaced" path that leads back to the origins of instrumental reason, so as













to outdo the concept of ob ective reason.& [ %&] +or is it an attempt to construe the process ofrationali ation as a negative philosophy of history. <ather, 9orkheimer and Adorno seek to %readan archaic image as a configuration of modernity& [ %' ] in a way that would open up the present tocritical assessment. /hey make the archaic appear meaningful in the light of the present, whilethe very newness and modernity of the present they reveal as significant in light of the archaic.7ike Greek tragedy, Dialectic u(taposes the moments of a seemingly overcome past to the mostbarbaric, most irrational phenomena of the present in order to demythologi e the present and the

past-s hold over it. /heir u(taposition of the archaic to the modern thus worked not to establisha historical origin for a noninstrumentali ed reason, but to critici e the present through thedeployment of a critical history and so undermine belief in the myth of history as progress.

• • •If my presentation has been persuasive, 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic oEnlightenment e(emplifies what a dialogue between Greek tragedy !and by e(tension the thoughtof the classical polis" and contemporary theory can accomplish. /he authors of Dialectic sought

%a form of linguistic e(pression& [ &( ] that would resist assimilation to the systems of bureaucraticdomination and economic production of late capitalism. /he themes, style, and language of Greektragedy provide the necessary point of reference for revitali ing a theoretical and politicallanguage all but completely degraded and devalued by the proliferation of method, techni2ue,and calculative reason. Dialectic looks to the archaic sensibility of the tragic consciousness in itsrelation to myth, fate, and morality in order to locate an outside point of leverage from which tocomprehend and resist the ever more tightly sealed %systems& of mass deception !the cultureindustry" and outright barbarism !the 9olocaust". Dialectic thus stands to the present as Greektragedy stood to the ancient city. It %uses& the past, Greek tragedy included, to provide us with acritical view of ourselves, much as Greek tragedy used its own past to provide the polis with acritical consideration of its own public and private life. Since 9orkheimer and Adorno learn how to

%use& the past from Greek tragedy, they re ect the easy nostalgia of conservative culturalcriticism together with its wholesale assimilation of the past to the present as a negation of thepast-s critical potential. Greek tragedy !and theory" can surely help to loosen the hold modernforms of life e(ert on us, but a return to the past is neither possible nor desirable. 7ike tragedy,9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s narrative account of atrocity offers no consolation for theentanglement of history, savagery, and civili ation save the hard$won wisdom that comes

through suffering. Dialectic heeds its own admonition that it is the duty of thinking men andwomen to cultivate such wisdom.

-otes

B. I largely pass over the 1ar(ist background of 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic o Enlightenment !trans. 4ohn ummingK+ew 3ork' ontinuum *ooks, BHNCL", first, because I assume it to be unproblematic0 second, because I have little to add tothe voluminous scholarship on the critical theorists- place in the tradition of Western 1ar(ism0 and third, because I amdeliberately reading Dialectic out of its traditional conte(t in order to generate new insights. #utting it in the conte(t of)oucault, +iet sche, and tragedy is meant, not only to revitali e a book fallen into disuse, but also to demonstrate the abilityof classical thought to address the important issues of postmodernity. K*A OL

C. 1y reading of Dialectic is a sympathetic one. I am not overly concerned to defend some of its more contentious claims, forinstance, that German fascism is to be deduced from the logic of the dominant ratio itself, or that capitalism, fascism, andtotalitarianism share the same fundamental logic. I am highly critical of 9orkheimer and Adorno-s views on the culture industryand the abolition of the individual, although I also believe their position has merit. After all, in the face of the integrative

powers of the administrative state and the capitalist economy, the forces of popular culture have not yet brought therevolution. I am most concerned here that the collaborative work of 9orkheimer and Adorno be taken seriously again0 that itbe read in the conte(t of Greek tragedy, and that Greek tragedy and classical thought in general be recogni ed as valuablesources for thinking about contemporary political and theoretical problems. /he value of Dialectic o Enlightenment lies in itsability to teach us ho" tothin' about the world of people and things, which, like Greek tragedy, it does by both precept ande(ample. K*A OL

D. Oaren 9ermassi, Polity and Theatre in +istorical Perspective !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHNN", pp. D CE,offers a fine discussion of the tragic theater as an act of collective recollection. K*A OL

E. %As much as 9abermas places communication and language in the center of his theory, they almost always remain ob ectsof theory, as though theory were a language beyond speech,& <ainer +Tgele observes in %)reud, 9abermas and the 5ialectic of:nlightenment' ;n <eal and Ideal 5iscourse,& /e" German $riti>ue CC !BH B"' EC ED. K*A O L

F. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. N. K*A O L

M. Ibid., (vi. K*A OL

N. Ibid., D, (i. K*A OL

. Ibid., (iv. K*A O L

H. /his is truer of 9orkheimer than of Adorno, who as early as BHDB had critici ed the 1ar(ian concept of totality, as well asthe assumptions implicit in 1ar(-s %/heses on )euerbach,& in his lecture %/he Actuality of #hilosophy& !reprinted in Telos DB!Spring BHNN"' BCR DD. )or the influence of contemporary historical events on the theoretical development of 9orkheimer andAdorno, see 9elmut 5ubiel, Theory and Practice ! ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH F". K*A OL

































BR. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. (i. K*A O L

BB. /heodor W. Adorno, /egative Dialectics !+ew 3ork' ontinuum *ooks, BHND", p. D. K*A OL

BC. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. ER0 hristian 7enhardt, %/he Wanderings of :nlightenment,& in On $ritical Theory, ed.4ohn ;-+eill, pp. FC FD !+ew 3ork' Seabury #ress, BHNM"0 Dialectic, p. EC. 4oel Whitebrook-s attempt in %/he #olitics of<edemption,& Telos MD !Spring BH F", to distance himself from the so$called %politics of redemption& that he claims flows from9orkheimer-s and Adorno-s totali ing criti2ue of reason is misguided in my view. K*A OL

BD. 9orkheimer and Adorno see this logic at work in the structure of scientific thinking, in the development of philosophicalsystems, and in the phenomenon of culture as industry. Since I develop these themes at length below, I shall restrict mycomments here to the dialectic between democracy and normali ation. K*A OL

BE. /o borrow the title of 1artin 4ay-s collection of essays on the )rankfurt School, Permanent E)iles* Essays on the#ntellectual &igration rom Germany to America !+ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BH M". K*A OL

BF. /heodor W. Adorno, %/he ulture Industry <econsidered& !BHME", /e" German $riti>ue M !)all BHNF". K*A OL

BM. I am thinking of 9annah Arendt-s Eichmann in 1erusalem* A Report on the anality o Evil !+ew 3ork' >iking #ress, BHME0repr., #enguin *ooks, BHNN"0 see esp. pp. C M N. K*A OL

BN. 1artha . +ussbaum, The %ragility o Goodness* 0uc' and Ethics in Gree' Tragedy and Philosophy ! ambridge' ambridge=niversity #ress, BH M", pp. BCC ff., argues a relationship between Greek tragedy and #lato-s dialogues. K*A O L

B . 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, i(. K*A OL

BH. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. BCM. K*A OL

CR. Ibid., p. BDR. K*A OL

CB. Ibid., p. BCN. K*A OL

CC. Ibid., p. BDR. K*A OL

CD. Ibid., p. BDE. K*A OL

CE. Ibid. K*A O LCF. /imothy 4. <eiss reads Greek tragedy this way in Tragedy and Truth* !tudies in the Development o a Renaissance and/eoclassical Discourse !+ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress BH R", p. CB. K*A OL

CM. +ussbaum, %ragility o Goodness, p. BCH. K*A OL

CN. harles #. Segal, Tragedy and $ivili-ation* An #nterpretation o !ophocles ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress,BH B", p. CDC. K*A OL

C . ;n the educative function of tragedy, see 4. #eter :uben, ed., Gree' Tragedy and Political Theory !*erkeley' =niversity ofalifornia #ress, BH M", esp. introduction and Stephen Salkever, %/ragedy and the :ducation of the 5emos.& K*A O L

CH. ;n the eternal return of the same in the ;edipus plays, see )roma I. Qeitlin, %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society inAthenian 5rama,& in :uben, ed., Gree' Tragedy and Political Theory, pp. BRB EB. K*A OL

DR. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, (i. K*A OL

DB. Ibid., BN. K*A OL

DC. Ibid., (vii. K*A O L

DD. f. Walter *en amin-s %:very document of civili ation is also a document of barbarism& ! #lluminations, trans. 9arry Qohn,ed. 9annah Arendt K+ew 3ork' Schocken *ooks, BHMH0 repr., BH ML, p. CFM". Adorno elsewhere characteri es modernity-spsychological principle as %frigidity&—that is, as the capacity to see one-s fellows devoured without e(periencing guilt orphysical pain. Arendt comes to a similar conclusion, but calls it thoughtlessness' the inability to think from the standpoint ofsomebody else made it possible for :ichmann to efficiently organi e mass murder ! Eichmann in 1erusalem KBHNNL, p.EH". K*A OL

DE. Although 9orkheimer and Adorno-s Dialectic interprets the reversal of enlightenment by means of 7uk[cs-s concept ofrationali ation as reification, 7uk[cs does not deal with fascism directly0 see GyZrgy 7uk[cs, +istory and $lass $onsciousness*!tudies in &ar)ist Dialectics, trans. <odney 7ivingstone ! ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHNB", esp. %<eification and the

onsciousness of the #roletariat,& pp. D CCC. And see )riedrich August von 9ayek, The Road to !er dom ! hicago' =niversityof hicago #ress, BHEE", and Oarl #opper, The Open !ociety and #ts Enemies !BHEH0 #rinceton' #rinceton =niversity #ress,BHMM".K*A O L

DF. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. N. K*A OL

DM. Ibid., p. F. K*A O L

DN. Ibid., p. (iv. K*A OL

D . Arendt, Eichmann in 1erusalem !BHNN", p. CN . K*A OL

DH. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. F. K*A OLER. Ibid., p. N. K*A O L

EB. Ibid., p. . K*A O L

EC. Ibid., p. BC. K*A O L

ED. 9ere 9orkheimer and Adorno anticipate, e.g., 1ichel )oucault-s &adness and $ivili-ation* A +istory o #nsanity in the Ageo Reason, trans. <ichard 9oward !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHMF"0 Discipline and Punish* The irth o the Prison, trans.Alan Sheridan !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHNN"0 and The irth o the $linic* An Archeology o &edical Perception, trans. A.1. Sheridan Smith !+ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHND". K*A OL

EE. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. BD. K*A O L

EF. Ibid., p. DM. K*A O L

EM. Ibid., p. BFE. K*A OL

EN. /he phrase %culture industry& was first used by 9orkheimer and Adorno, who preferred it to %mass culture& because of thelatter phrase-s populist connotations. /hey oppose %mass culture& not because it is democratic but precisely because it isnot. K*A OL

E . /heodor W. Adorno and George Simpson, %;n #opular 1usic,& !tudies in Philosophy and !ocial !cience H, B !special issue,BHEB"' E . K*A OL

EH. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. BCR. K*A O L

FR. Ibid., p. BFB. K*A OL















































































































FB. Ibid., p. BFD. K*A OL

FC. Ibid., p. BFE. K*A OL

FD. Adorno, % ulture Industry <econsidered,& p. BDF. K*A O L

FE. /heodor W. Adorno, Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierry Weber !*oston' 1I/ #ress, BH B", p. BC . K*A O L

FF. /his account and appropriation of popular democratic culture and practice draws on #aul Gilroy, The lac' Atlantic*&odernity and Double $onsciousness ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress, BHHD", esp. ch. D, %4ewels *rought from*ondage' *lack 1usic and the #olitics of Authenticity,& and !mall Acts* Thoughts on the Politics o lac' $ultures !7ondon'Serpent-s /ail #ress, BHHD"0 1ichel de erteau, The Practice o Everyday 0i e !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH E"04ohn )iske, Reading the Popular !*oston' =nwin 9yman, BH H"0 4ean *audrillard, %atal !trategies !+ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e",BHHR"0 5ick 9ebdige, !ubculture* The &eaning o !tyle !7ondon' 1ethuen, BHNH"0 <oland *arthes, &ythologies !7ondon'#aladin, BHND"0 #ierre *ourdieu, Distinction* A !ocial $riti>ue o the 1udgement o Taste ! ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard=niversity #ress, BH E"0 and =mberto :co, Travels in +yperreality* Essays, trans. William Weaver !7ondon' #icador0 +ew 3ork'9arcourt, *race, 4ovanovich, BH M". K*A O L

FM. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. C. K*A O L

FN. Ibid., p. CE. K*A O L

F . Ibid., p. (iv. K*A OL

FH. 5avid 9eld, #ntroduction to $ritical Theory !*erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH E", p. CBM. K*A OL

MR. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. E. K*A O L

MB. Arendt, Eichmann in 1erusalem !BHNN", p. EH. K*A OL

MC. Adorno, /egative Dialectics p. B D. K*A O L

MD. 48rgen 9abermas, The Theory o $ommunicative Action* Reason and the Rationali-ation o !ociety, trans. /homas1c arthy !*oston' *eacon #ress, BH E"0 Seyla *en habib, %1odernity and the Aporias of ritical /heory,& /e" German$riti>ue EH !)all BH B", and $riti>ue, /orm and ?topia* A !tudy o the %oundations o $ritical Theory !+ew 3ork' olumbia=niversity #ress, BH M", pp. BEN F. K*A OLME. It is also this structure that the critics ignore when interpreting Dialectic. K*A OL

MF. :uben, ed., Gree' Tragedy and Political Theory, introduction. K*A OL

MM. 4ean$#ierre >ernant, %/ensions and Ambiguities in Greek /ragedy,& in id. and #ierre >idal$+a2uet, &yth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, trans. 4anet 7oyd !+ew 3ork' Qone *ooks, BH R", pp. DC DD. K*A OL

MN. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, pp. EF EM. K*A O L

M . 9ere is another instance in which a theme from Oedipus Tyrannos resonates with 9orkheimer and Adorno-s reading of9omer' we find the same confusing u(taposition of hereditary entitlement !myth" and superior intellect !enlightenment" asgrounds for political rule in Sophocles- play. K*A O L

MH. 7enhardt, %Wanderings of :nlightenment,& p. EB. K*A O L

NR. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. ED. K*A O L

NB. Ibid., p. DE. K*A O L

NC. 7enhardt, %Wanderings of :nlightenment,& p. EE. K*A O L

ND. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. EH. K*A O L

NE. 7enhardt, %Wanderings of :nlightenment,& p. EN. K*A O L

NF. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. FE. K*A O L

NM. Ibid., pp. FE FF. K*A O L

NN. 7enhardt, %Wanderings of :nlightenment,& p. E . K*A O L

N . 9abermas, Theory o $ommunicative Action, B' D C. K*A O L

NH. Susan *uck$1orss, The Origins o /egative Dialectics* Theodor Adorno, (alter enjamin and the %ran' urt #nstitute !+ew3ork' )ree #ress, BHNN", p. FH. K*A OL

R. 9orkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic, p. (ii. K*A OL

4orks ited

Adorno, /heodor W. %/he Actuality of #hilosophy.& Telos DB !Spring BHNN"' BCR DD. 222222 . %/he ulture Industry <econsidered.& BHME. /e" German $riti>ue M !)all BHNF"'

BC BH.

222222 . /egative Dialectics. +ew 3ork' ontinuum *ooks, BHND. 222222 . Prisms. /ranslated by Samuel and Shierry Weber. *oston' 1I/ #ress,

BH B.Adorno, /heodor W., and George Simpson. %;n #opular 1usic.& !tudies in Philosophy and !ocial

!cience H, B !special issue, BHEB".






















































http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Actuality%20of%20Philosophy.;title=Telos;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=On%20Popular%20Music.;title=Studies%20in%20Philosophy%20and%20Social%20Science;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Prisms.;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Negative%20Dialectics.;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Culture%20Industry%20Reconsidered.;title=New%20German%20Critique;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Actuality%20of%20Philosophy.;title=Telos;aulast=Adorno;__char_set=utf8

































Aeschylus. Agamemnon. :dited by 4. 5. 5enniston and 5. 7. #age. ;(ford' ;(ford =niversity

#ress, BHFN. 222222 . Eumenides. :dited by Anthony 4. #odlecki. Warminster, :ng.' Aris P #hillips,

BH H.

222222 . Oresteia. :dited by 5enys #age. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BHNC. 222222 . Oresteia. :dited by George /homson. C vols. ambridge' ambridge =niversity

#ress, BHD . <ev. ed., Amsterdam and #rague, BHMM. 222222 . Oresteia. /ranslated by <ichmond 7attimore. >ol. B of The $omplete Gree'Tragedies, ed. 5avid Grene and <ichmond 7attimore. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress,

BHFD.

Andrewes, A. The Gree' Tyrants. BHFM. Eth ed. +ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BHMC.

Annas, 4ulia. An #ntroduction to Plato s Republic. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BH B.Appadurai, Ar un. %5is uncture and 5ifference in the Global ultural :conomy.& In The PhantomPublic !phere, ed. *ruce <obbins, CMH HF. 1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress,

BHHD.

Arendt, 9annah. et"een Past and %uture. +ew 3ork' >iking #ress, BHF . 222222 . Eichmann in 1erusalem* A Report on the anality o Evil. +ew 3ork' >iking #ress,

BHME. <eprint, #enguin *ooks, BHNN.

222222 . The +uman $ondition. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BHF .*amberger, 7. %/he 1yth of 1atriarchy' Why 1en <ule in #rimitive Society.& In (omen, $ultureand !ociety, ed. 1ichelle <osaldo and 7ouise 7amphere. Stanford' Stanford =niversity #ress,

BHNE.

*arthes, <oland. &ythologies. 7ondon' #aladin, BHND.

*audrillard, 4ean. %atal !trategies. +ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BHHR.

222222 . #n the !hado" o the !ilent &ajority. +ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BH D. 222222 . %/he #recession of Simulacra.& In !imulations, pp. B NH. +ew 3ork'

Semiote(t!e", BH D.*enardete, Seth. %A <eading of Sophocles- Antigone. # & . #nterpretation E, D !Spring BHNF"' BE

HM. 222222 . %Sophocles- Oedipus Tyrannos. & In !ophocles* A $ollection o $ritical Essays, ed.

/homas Woodward. :nglewood liffs, +.4.' #rentice$9all, BHMM.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Oedipus%20Tyrannos.;title=Sophocles:%20A%20Collection%20of%20Critical%20Essays,;aulast=Benardete;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=A%20Reading%20of%20Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Antigone.%20I;title=Interpretation;aulast=Benardete;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Precession%20of%20Simulacra.;title=Simulations,;aulast=Baudrillard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=In%20the%20Shadow%20of%20the%20Silent%20Majority.;aulast=Baudrillard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Fatal%20Strategies.;aulast=Baudrillard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Mythologies.;aulast=Barthes;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Myth%20of%20Matriarchy:%20Why%20Men%20Rule%20in%20Primitive%20Society.;title=Women,%20Culture%20and%20Society,;aulast=Bamberger;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Human%20Condition.;aulast=Arendt;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Eichmann%20in%20Jerusalem:%20A%20Report%20on%20the%20Banality%20of%20Evil.;aulast=Arendt;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Between%20Past%20and%20Future.;aulast=Arendt;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Disjuncture%20and%20Difference%20in%20the%20Global%20Cultural%20Economy.;title=The%20Phantom%20Public%20Sphere,;aulast=Appadurai;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=An%20Introduction%20to%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Republic.;aulast=Annas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Greek%20Tyrants.;aulast=Andrewes;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Oresteia.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8



http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Eumenides.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Agamemnon.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8



*enhabib, Seyla. $riti>ue, /orm and ?topia* A !tudy o the %oundations o $ritical Theory. +ew

3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BH M. 222222 . %1odels of #ublic Space' 9annah Arendt, the 7iberal /radition and 48rgen9abermas.& In +abermas and the Public !phere, ed. raig alhoun, pp. ND H . ambridge,

1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHHC. 222222 . %1odernity and the Aporias of ritical /heory.& Telos CB !)all BH B"' EN

NE.*en amin, Walter. #lluminations. /ranslated by 9arry Qohn. :dited with an introduction by 9annah

Arendt. +ew 3ork' Schocken *ooks, BHMH. <eprint, BH M. 222222 . The Origin o German Tragic Drama. /ranslated by 4ohn ;sborne. 7ondon' +7*,

BHNN.

*ernal, 1artin.lac' Athena* The A roasiatic Roots o $lassical $ivili-ation.

>ol. B. +ew

*runswick, +.4.' <utgers =niversity #ress, BH N.

*ernstein, <ichard, ed. +abermas and &odernity. ;(ford' *lackwell, BH F.*etensky, Aya. %Aeschylus- Oresteia* /he #ower of lytemnestra.& Ramus N, B !BHN "' BB

CF.

*lanchot, 1aurice. 0 Entretien in ini. #aris' Gallimard, BHMH.

*loom, Allan. The Republic o Plato. +ew 3ork' *asic *ooks, BHM .*luck, <. S. %Is #lato-s Republic a /heocracy?& . Philosophical Juarterly F, B !4an. BHFF"' MH

ND.*ourdieu, #ierre. Distinction* A !ocial $riti>ue o the 1udgement o Taste. ambridge, 1ass.'

9arvard =niversity #ress, BH E.

*owra, . 1. !ophoclean Tragedy. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BHEE.*rown, Wendy 7. &anhood and Politics* A %eminist Reading in Political Theory. /otowa, +.4.'

<owman P 7ittlefield, BH .*uck$1orss, Susan. The Origins o /egative Dialectics* Theodor Adorno, (alter enjamin and the

%ran' urt #nstitute. +ew 3ork' )ree #ress, BHNN.

*urton, <. W. *. The $horus in !ophocles Tragedies. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BH R. *utler, 4udith. odies That &atter* On the Discursive 0imits o H!e).I +ew 3ork' <outledge,

BHHD.

*u(ton, <. G. A. %*lindness and 7imits' Sophokles and the 7ogic of 1yth.& 1ournal o +ellenic

!tudies BRR !BH R"' CC DN.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Chorus%20in%20Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Tragedies.;aulast=Burton;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Blindness%20and%20Limits:%20Sophokles%20and%20the%20Logic%20of%20Myth.;title=Journal%20of%20Hellenic%20Studies;aulast=Buxton;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Bodies%20That%20Matter:%20On%20the%20Discursive%20Limits%20of%20Sex.;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Chorus%20in%20Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Tragedies.;aulast=Burton;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Origins%20of%20Negative%20Dialectics:%20Theodor%20Adorno,%20Walter%20Benjamin%20and%20the%20Frankfurt%20Institute.;aulast=Buck-Morss;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Manhood%20and%20Politics:%20A%20Feminist%20Reading%20in%20Political%20Theory.;aulast=Brown;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophoclean%20Tragedy.;aulast=Bowra;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Distinction:%20A%20Social%20Critique%20of%20the%20Judgement%20of%20Taste.;aulast=Bourdieu;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Is%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Republic%20a%20Theocracy?;title=Philosophical%20Quarterly;aulast=Bluck;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Republic%20of%20Plato.;aulast=Bloom;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=L%E2%80%99Entretien%20infini.;aulast=Blanchot;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Aeschylus%E2%80%99%20Oresteia:%20The%20Power%20of%20Clytemnestra.;title=Ramus;aulast=Betensky;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Habermas%20and%20Modernity.;aulast=Bernstein;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Black%20Athena:%20The%20Afroasiatic%20Roots%20of%20Classical%20Civilization.;aulast=Bernal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Origin%20of%20German%20Tragic%20Drama.;aulast=Benjamin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Illuminations.;aulast=Benjamin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Modernity%20and%20the%20Aporias%20of%20Critical%20Theory.;title=Telos;aulast=Benhabib;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Models%20of%20Public%20Space:%20Hannah%20Arendt,%20the%20Liberal%20Tradition%20and%20J%C3%BCrgen%20Habermas.;title=Habermas%20and%20the%20Public%20Sphere,;aulast=Benhabib;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Critique,%20Norm%20and%20Utopia:%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Foundations%20of%20Critical%20Theory.;aulast=Benhabib;__char_set=utf8



5odds, :. <. %1orals and #olitics in the Oresteia. &Proceedings o the $ambridge Philological

!ociety B M, M !BHMR"' BH DB. 222222 . %;n 1isunderstanding the Oedipus Re). & In Gree' Tragedy* &odern Essays in

$riticism, ed. :rich Segal, pp. BNN CRH. +ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BH D.5over, O. 4. %/he #olitical Aspect of Aeschylus-s Eumenides. & 1ournal o +ellenic !tudies NN, B

!BHFN"' CDR DN.

5ubiel, 9elmut. Theory and Practice. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH F.:co, =mberto. Travels in +yperreality* Essays. /ranslated by William Weaver. 7ondon' #icador0

+ew 3ork' 9arcourt, *race, 4ovanovich, BH M.

:hrenberg, >ictor. !ophocles and Pericles. ;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHFE.

:ley, Geoff. %+ations, #ublics and #olitical ultures' #lacing 9abermas in the +ineteenth entury.&In +abermas and the Public !phere, ed. raig alhoun, pp. C H DDH. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/

#ress, BHHC.:lshtain, 4ean *ethke. Public &an, Private (oman. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress,

BH B.:uben, 4. #eter. % reatures of a 5ay' /hought and Action in /hucydides.& In Political Theory andPra)is* /e" Perspectives, ed. /erence *all, pp. C FM. 1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota

#ress, BHNN.

222222 . The Tragedy o Political Theory* The Road /ot Ta'en. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton

=niversity #ress, BHHR.:uben, 4. #eter. ed. Gree' Tragedy and Political Theory. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress,

BH M.:uben, 4. #eter, 4osiah ;ber, and 4ohn Wallach, eds. Athenian Political Thought and the

Reconstruction o American Democracy. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHE.)errari, Giovanni. 0istening to the $icadas* A !tudy o Plato s Phaedrus. ambridge' ambridge

=niversity #ress, BH N.)estugiere, Andr . $ontemplation et vie contemplative selon Platon. #aris' 4. >rin,

BHDM.)inley, 4ohn 9., 4r. Pindar and Aeschylus. ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard =niversity #ress,

BHMM.

)iske, 4ohn. Reading the Popular. *oston' =nwin 9yman, BH H.)oucault, 1ichel. The irth o the $linic* An Archeology o &edical Perception. /ranslated by A. 1.

Sheridan Smith. +ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHND.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Morals%20and%20Politics%20in%20the%20Oresteia.;title=Proceedings%20of%20the%20Cambridge%20Philological%20Society;aulast=Dodds;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Clinic:%20An%20Archeology%20of%20Medical%20Perception.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Reading%20the%20Popular.;aulast=Fiske;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Pindar%20and%20Aeschylus.;aulast=Finley;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Contemplation%20et%20vie%20contemplative%20selon%20Platon.;aulast=Festugiere;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Listening%20to%20the%20Cicadas:%20A%20Study%20of%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Phaedrus.;aulast=Ferrari;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Athenian%20Political%20Thought%20and%20the%20Reconstruction%20of%20American%20Democracy.;aulast=Euben;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Greek%20Tragedy%20and%20Political%20Theory.;aulast=Euben;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Tragedy%20of%20Political%20Theory:%20The%20Road%20Not%20Taken.;aulast=Euben;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Creatures%20of%20a%20Day:%20Thought%20and%20Action%20in%20Thucydides.;title=Political%20Theory%20and%20Praxis:%20New%20Perspectives,;aulast=Euben;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Public%20Man,%20Private%20Woman.;aulast=Elshtain;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Nations,%20Publics%20and%20Political%20Cultures:%20Placing%20Habermas%20in%20the%20Nineteenth%20Century.;title=Habermas%20and%20the%20Public%20Sphere,;aulast=Eley;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles%20and%20Pericles.;aulast=Ehrenberg;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Travels%20in%20Hyperreality:%20Essays.;aulast=Eco;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Theory%20and%20Practice.;aulast=Dubiel;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Political%20Aspect%20of%20Aeschylus%E2%80%99s%20Eumenides.;title=Journal%20of%20Hellenic%20Studies;aulast=Dover;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=On%20Misunderstanding%20the%20Oedipus%20Rex.;title=Greek%20Tragedy:%20Modern%20Essays%20in%20Criticism,;aulast=Dodds;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Morals%20and%20Politics%20in%20the%20Oresteia.;title=Proceedings%20of%20the%20Cambridge%20Philological%20Society;aulast=Dodds;__char_set=utf8



222222 . Discipline and Punish* The irth o the Prison. /ranslated by Alan Sheridan. +ew

3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHNN. <eprint, +ew 3ork' >intage *ooks, BHNH. 222222 . %/he :thic of are for the Self.& In The %inal %oucault, ed. 4ames *ernauer and

5avid <asmussen. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH . 222222 . The +istory o !e)uality. /ranslated by <obert 9urley. >ol. B. +ew 3ork' #antheon

*ooks, BHN . 222222 . &adness and $ivili-ation* A +istory o #nsanity in the Age o Reason. /ranslated

by <ichard 9oward. +ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BHMF. 222222 . %+iet sche, Genealogy, 9istory.& In The %oucault Reader, ed. #aul <abinow. +ew

3ork' #antheon *ooks, BH E. 222222 . Po"er24no"ledge* !elected #ntervie"s and Other (ritings, 5678977. :dited by

olin Gordon. +ew 3ork' #antheon *ooks, BH R. 222222 . %/he Sub ect and #ower.& In &ichel %oucault* eyond !tructuralism and+ermeneutics, ed. 9ubert 5reyfus and #aul <abinow. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress,

BH C.

222222 . 0 ?sage des plaisirs. #aris' Gallimard, BH E. 222222 . The ?se o Pleasure. /ranslated by <obert 9urley. >ol. C of The +istory o

!e)uality. +ew 3ork' >intage *ooks, BH M.)raser, +ancy. %)oucault on 1odern #ower' :mpirical Insights and +ormative onfusions. & Pra)is

#nternational B !BH B". 222222 . %<ethinking the #ublic Sphere' A ontribution to the riti2ue of Actually :(isting

5emocracy.& !ocial Te)t , H !BHHR"' FM R. 222222 . %What-s ritical about ritical /heory? /he ase of 9abermas and Gender.&In %eminism as $riti>ue, ed. 5rucilla ornell and Seyla *enhabib, pp. DB FM. +ew 3ork'

<outledge, BHHR.)riedlTnder, #aul. Plato. D vols. BHC DR. /ranslated by 9ans 1eyerhoff. +ew 3ork' #antheon

*ooks, BHF . *ollingen Series, FH.)riedman, George. The Political Philosophy o the %ran' urt !chool. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell

=niversity #ress, BH B.)risk, 9 almar. Griechisches Etymologisches ( rterbuch. 9eidelberg' . Winter,

BHMR.Gadamer, 9ans$Georg. Dialogue and Dialectic* Eight +ermeneutical !tudies on Plato. /ranslated

by hristopher #. Smith. +ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH R.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Dialogue%20and%20Dialectic:%20Eight%20Hermeneutical%20Studies%20on%20Plato.;aulast=Gadamer;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Griechisches%20Etymologisches%20W%C3%B6rterbuch.;aulast=Frisk;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Political%20Philosophy%20of%20the%20Frankfurt%20School.;aulast=Friedman;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato.;aulast=Friedl%C3%A4nder;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=What%E2%80%99s%20Critical%20about%20Critical%20Theory?%20The%20Case%20of%20Habermas%20and%20Gender.;title=Feminism%20as%20Critique,;aulast=Fraser;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Rethinking%20the%20Public%20Sphere:%20A%20Contribution%20to%20the%20Critique%20of%20Actually%20Existing%20Democracy.;title=Social%20Text;aulast=Fraser;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Foucault%20on%20Modern%20Power:%20Empirical%20Insights%20and%20Normative%20Confusions.%20;title=Praxis%20International;aulast=Fraser;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Use%20of%20Pleasure.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=L%E2%80%99Usage%20des%20plaisirs.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Subject%20and%20Power.;title=Michel%20Foucault:%20Beyond%20Structuralism%20and%20Hermeneutics,;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Power/Knowledge:%20Selected%20Interviews%20and%20Other%20Writings,%201972%E2%80%9377.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Nietzsche,%20Genealogy,%20History.;title=The%20Foucault%20Reader,;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Madness%20and%20Civilization:%20A%20History%20of%20Insanity%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Reason.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20History%20of%20Sexuality.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Ethic%20of%20Care%20for%20the%20Self.;title=The%20Final%20Foucault,;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Discipline%20and%20Punish:%20The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Prison.;aulast=Foucault;__char_set=utf8



Gagarin, 1ichael. Aeschylean Drama. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHNM.Gaisford, /homas, ed. Etymologicum &agnum. B E . Amsterdam' Adolf 1. 9akkert,

BHMN.Gandesha, Samir. %/he /heatre of the @;ther-' Adorno, #oststructuralism and the riti2ue of

Identity.& In Philosophy and !ocial $riticism BN, D !BHHB"' CED MD.

Gardiner, . #. The !ophoclean $horus. Iowa ity' =niversity of Iowa #ress, BH N.Gilroy, #aul. The lac' Atlantic* &odernity and Double $onsciousness. ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard

=niversity #ress, BHHD. 222222 . !mall Acts* Thoughts on the Politics o lac' $ultures. 7ondon' Serpent-s /ail

#ress, BHHD.

Goheen, <. ). The #magery o !ophocles Antigone* A !tudy o Poetic 0anguage and

!tructure. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHFB.Goldhill, Simon. Aeschylus* The Oresteia. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress,

BHHC. 222222 . 0anguage, !e)uality, /arrative* The Oresteia. ambridge' ambridge =niversity

#ress, BH E. 222222 . Reading Gree' Tragedy. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress,

BH M.Grene, 5avid, and <ichmond 7attimore, eds. The $omplete Gree' Tragedies, vol.

B' !ophocles. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BHHB.Griswold, harles 7., ed. Platonic (ritings 2 Platonic Readings. +ew 3ork' <outledge,

BH .Guthrie, W. O. . Plato* The &an and +is Dialogues. >ol. E of A +istory o Gree'

Philosophy. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BHNF.

9abermas, 48rgen. $ommunication and the Evolution o !ociety. /ranslated by /homas 1c arthy.

*oston' *eacon #ress, BHNH. 222222 . %/he :ntwinement of 1yth and :nlightenment' <ereading Dialectic oEnlightenment. &/e" German $riti>ue CM !Spring Summer BH C". <epublished in ThePhilosophical Discourse o &odernity* T"elve 0ectures, trans. )rederick G. 7awrence. ambridge,

1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH N. 222222 . %Geschichte und :volution.& In Kur Re'onstru'tion des +istorischen

&aterialismus. )rankfurt' Suhrkamp, BHNM.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Geschichte%20und%20Evolution.;title=Zur%20Rekonstruktion%20des%20Historischen%20Materialismus.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Entwinement%20of%20Myth%20and%20Enlightenment:%20Rereading%20Dialectic%20of%20Enlightenment.;title=New%20German%20Critique;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Communication%20and%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Society.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato:%20The%20Man%20and%20His%20Dialogues.;aulast=Guthrie;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Platonic%20Writings%20/%20Platonic%20Readings.;aulast=Griswold;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Complete%20Greek%20Tragedies,;aulast=Grene;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Reading%20Greek%20Tragedy.;aulast=Goldhill;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Language,%20Sexuality,%20Narrative:%20The%20Oresteia.;aulast=Goldhill;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Aeschylus:%20The%20Oresteia.;aulast=Goldhill;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Imagery%20of%20Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Antigone:%20A%20Study%20of%20Poetic%20Language%20and%20Structure.;aulast=Goheen;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Small%20Acts:%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Politics%20of%20Black%20Cultures.;aulast=Gilroy;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Black%20Atlantic:%20Modernity%20and%20Double%20Consciousness.;aulast=Gilroy;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Sophoclean%20Chorus.;aulast=Gardiner;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Theatre%20of%20the%20%E2%80%98Other%E2%80%99:%20Adorno,%20Poststructuralism%20and%20the%20Critique%20of%20Identity.;title=Philosophy%20and%20Social%20Criticism;aulast=Gandesha;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Etymologicum%20Magnum.;aulast=Gaisford;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Aeschylean%20Drama.;aulast=Gagarin;__char_set=utf8



222222 . 4no"ledge and +uman #nterests. /ranslated by 4eremy 4. Shapiro. *oston'

*eacon #ress, BHNB. 222222 . %1odernity vs. #ostmodernity.& /e" German $riti>ue CC !Winter BH B"' D

BE. 222222 . &oral $onsciousness and $ommunicative Action. /ranslated by . 7enhardt and

S. +icholsen. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHHR. 222222 . %;n 7eveling the Genre 5istinction between #hilosophy and <hetoric.& In ThePhilosophical Discourse o &odernity* T"elve 0ectures, trans. )rederick G. 7awrence, pp. B F

CBR. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH N. 222222 . The Philosophical Discourse o &odernity* T"elve 0ectures. /ranslated by

)rederick G. 7awrence. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BH N.

222222 . Theory and Practice. /ranslated by 4ohn >iertel. *oston' *eacon #ress,

BHND. 222222 . The Theory o $ommunicative Action* Reason and the Rationali-ation o!ociety. >ol. C, 0i e"orld and !ystem* A $riti>ue o %unctionalist Reason . /ranslated by /homas

1c arthy. *oston' *eacon #ress, BH E, BH N. 222222 . To"ard a Rational !ociety* !tudent Protest, !cience, and Politics. /ranslated by

4eremy 4. Shapiro. *oston' *eacon #ress, BHNR.

9all, 5ale. %/he <epublic and the 7imits of #olitics.& Political Theory F, D !Aug. BHNN".9artsock, +ancy . 1. &oney, !e), and Po"er* To"ard a %eminist +istorical &aterialism. +ew

3ork' 7ongman, BH D.9ayek, )riedrich August von. The Road to !er dom. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress,

BHEE.

9ebdige, 5ick. !ubculture* The &eaning o !tyle. 7ondon' 1ethuen, BHNH.9eidegger, 1artin. eing and Time. /ranslated by 4ohn 1ac2uarrie and :dward <obinson. +ew

3ork' 9arper, BHMC.9eld, 5avid. #ntroduction to $ritical Theory. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress,

BH E.9elmbold, W. . %/he #arado( of ;edipus.& American 1ournal o Philology NC, D !BHFB"' CHD

DRR.9ermassi, Oaren. Polity and Theatre in +istorical Perspective. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia

#ress, BHNN.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Theory%20of%20Communicative%20Action:%20Reason%20and%20the%20Rationalization%20of%20Society.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Polity%20and%20Theatre%20in%20Historical%20Perspective.;aulast=Hermassi;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Paradox%20of%20Oedipus.;title=American%20Journal%20of%20Philology;aulast=Helmbold;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Introduction%20to%20Critical%20Theory.;aulast=Held;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Being%20and%20Time.;aulast=Heidegger;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Subculture:%20The%20Meaning%20of%20Style.;aulast=Hebdige;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Road%20to%20Serfdom.;aulast=Hayek;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Money,%20Sex,%20and%20Power:%20Toward%20a%20Feminist%20Historical%20Materialism.;aulast=Hartsock;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Republic%20and%20the%20Limits%20of%20Politics.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Hall;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Toward%20a%20Rational%20Society:%20Student%20Protest,%20Science,%20and%20Politics.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Theory%20of%20Communicative%20Action:%20Reason%20and%20the%20Rationalization%20of%20Society.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Theory%20and%20Practice.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Philosophical%20Discourse%20of%20Modernity:%20Twelve%20Lectures.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=On%20Leveling%20the%20Genre%20Distinction%20between%20Philosophy%20and%20Rhetoric.;title=The%20Philosophical%20Discourse%20of%20Modernity:%20Twelve%20Lectures,;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Moral%20Consciousness%20and%20Communicative%20Action.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Modernity%20vs.%20Postmodernity.;title=New%20German%20Critique;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Knowledge%20and%20Human%20Interests.;aulast=Habermas;__char_set=utf8



9olmes, Stephen /. %Aristippus in and out of Athens.& American Political !cience Revie" ND, B

!1ar. BHNH"' BBD CN.9onig, *onnie. %Arendt, Identity and 5ifference.& Political Theory BM, no B !)eb. BH "' NN

H .

222222 . Political Theory and the Displacement o Politics. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity

#ress, BHHD. 222222 . %/oward an Agonistic )eminism.& In %eminists Theori-e the Political, ed. 4udith

*utler and 4oan Scott, pp. CBF DF. +ew 3ork' <outledge, BHHC. 9orkheimer, 1a(. $ritical Theory* !elected Essays. /ranslated by 1atthew 4. ;- onnell et al. +ew

3ork' 9erder and 9erder, BHNC.9orkheimer, 1a(, and /heodor W. Adorno. Dialectic o Enlightenment. /ranslated by 4ohn

umming. +ew 3ork' ontinuum *ooks, BHMH.9oy, 5avid . %)oucault' 1odern or #ostmodern?& In A ter %oucault* +umanistic 4no"ledge,Postmodern $hallenges, ed. 4onathan Arac, BC EB. +ew *runswick, +.4.' <utgers =niversity

#ress, BH .9oy, 5avid ., and /homas 1c arthy. $ritical Theory. ambridge, 1ass.' *lackwell,

BHHE.

Ignatieff, 1ichael. The /eeds o !trangers. +ew 3ork' >iking #ress, BH E.

Irwin, /. 9. Plato s &oral Theory. ;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHNN.4ac2ues, 4. 9. Plato s Republic* A eginner s Guide. 5erby, :ng.' itadel #ress0 7ondon' /om

Stacey, BHNB. 4aeger, Werner. Paideia* The #deals o Gree' $ulture. >ol. C. +ew 3ork' ;(ford =niversity #ress,

BHED.4ameson, )redric. %#ostmodernism, or, /he ultural 7ogic of 7ate apitalism.& /e" 0e t

Revie" BEM !4uly Aug. BH E"' FD HC.

4ay, 1artin. %9abermas and 1odernism.& Pra)is #nternational E !BH E" 222222 . &ar)ism and Totality* The Adventures o a $oncept rom 0u' cs to

+abermas. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH E. 222222 . Permanent E)iles* Essays on the #ntellectual &igration rom Germany to

America. +ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BH M.

4ones, 4ohn. On Aristotle and Gree' Tragedy. 7ondon' hatto P Windus, BHMC.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Toward%20an%20Agonistic%20Feminism.;title=Feminists%20Theorize%20the%20Political,;aulast=Honig;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato%E2%80%99s%20Republic:%20A%20Beginner%E2%80%99s%20Guide.;aulast=Jacques;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=On%20Aristotle%20and%20Greek%20Tragedy.;aulast=Jones;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Permanent%20Exiles:%20Essays%20on%20the%20Intellectual%20Migration%20from%20Germany%20to%20America.;aulast=Jay;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Marxism%20and%20Totality:%20The%20Adventures%20of%20a%20Concept%20from%20Luk%C3%A1cs%20to%20Habermas.;aulast=Jay;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Habermas%20and%20Modernism.;title=Praxis%20International;aulast=Jay;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Postmodernism,%20or,%20The%20Cultural%20Logic%20of%20Late%20Capitalism.;title=New%20Left%20Review;aulast=Jameson;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Paideia:%20The%20Ideals%20of%20Greek%20Culture.;aulast=Jaeger;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato%E2%80%99s%20Republic:%20A%20Beginner%E2%80%99s%20Guide.;aulast=Jacques;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato%E2%80%99s%20Moral%20Theory.;aulast=Irwin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Needs%20of%20Strangers.;aulast=Ignatieff;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Critical%20Theory.;aulast=Hoy;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Foucault:%20Modern%20or%20Postmodern?;title=After%20Foucault:%20Humanistic%20Knowledge,%20Postmodern%20Challenges,;aulast=Hoy;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Dialectic%20of%20Enlightenment.;aulast=Horkheimer;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Critical%20Theory:%20Selected%20Essays.;aulast=Horkheimer;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Toward%20an%20Agonistic%20Feminism.;title=Feminists%20Theorize%20the%20Political,;aulast=Honig;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Political%20Theory%20and%20the%20Displacement%20of%20Politics.;aulast=Honig;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Arendt,%20Identity%20and%20Difference.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Honig;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Aristippus%20in%20and%20out%20of%20Athens.;title=American%20Political%20Science%20Review;aulast=Holmes;__char_set=utf8



4ones, 7eslie Ann. %/he <ole of :phialtes in the <ise of Athenian 5emocracy.& $lassical

Anti>uity M, B !Apr. BH N"' FD NM.Oahn, harles. %5ialogue and 5ialectic in #lato-s Gorgias.& In O) ord !tudies in Ancient

Philosophy, vol. B, ed. 4ulia Annas. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BH D.

222222 . %5id #lato Write Socratic 5ialogues?& In Essays on the Philosophy o !ocrates, ed.

9ugh 9. *enson. +ew 3ork' ;(ford =niversity #ress, BHHC.Oellner, 5ouglas. % ritical /heory /oday' <evisiting the lassics.& Theory, $ulture and !ociety BR,

C !1ay BHHD"' ED MR.

Oirkwood, G. 1. !ophoclean Drama. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHFN.

Oitto, 9. 5. ). %orm and &eaning in Gree' Drama. 7ondon' 1ethuen, BHFM.

222222 . Gree' Tragedy* A 0iterary !tudy. BHMB. Fth ed. 7ondon' 1ethuen,

BHN . 222222 . !ophocles, Dramatist and Philosopher. Westport, onn.' Greenwood #ress,

BH B.Olein, 4acob. A $ommentary on Plato s &eno. hapel 9ill' =niversity of +orth arolina #ress,

BHMF.Ono(, *ernard. The +eroic Temper* !tudies in !ophoclean Tragedy. *erkeley' =niversity of

alifornia #ress, BHME.

222222 . Oedipus at Thebes. +ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BHFN.7andes, 4oan. (omen and the Public !phere in the Age o the %rench Revolution. Ithaca, +.3.'

ornell =niversity #ress, BH .7ane, Warren, and Ann 7ane. %Athenian #olitical /hought and the )eminist #olitics of #oiesis and#ra(is.& In Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction o American Democracy, ed. 4. #eter:uben, 4osiah ;ber, and 4ohn Wallach, pp. CMF . Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress,

BHHE.7ash, Scott, and 4ohn =rry. The End o Organi-ed $apitalism. 1adison, =niversity of Wisconsin

#ress, BH N.7ebeck, Anne. The Oresteia* A !tudy in 0anguage and !tructure. ambridge, 1ass.' 9arvard

=niversity #ress, BHNB.7efort, laude. Democracy and Political Theory. /ranslated by 5avid 1arcy. 1inneapolis'

=niversity of 1innesota #ess, BH .7enhardt, hristian. %/he Wanderings of :nlightenment.& In On $ritical Theory, ed. 4ohn ;-+eill,

pp. FC FD. +ew 3ork' Seabury #ress, BHNM.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Wanderings%20of%20Enlightenment.;title=On%20Critical%20Theory,;aulast=Lenhardt;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Democracy%20and%20Political%20Theory.;aulast=Lefort;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Oresteia:%20A%20Study%20in%20Language%20and%20Structure.;aulast=Lebeck;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20End%20of%20Organized%20Capitalism.;aulast=Lash;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Athenian%20Political%20Thought%20and%20the%20Feminist%20Politics%20of%20Poiesis%20and%20Praxis.;title=Athenian%20Political%20Thought%20and%20the%20Reconstruction%20of%20American%20Democracy,;aulast=Lane;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Women%20and%20the%20Public%20Sphere%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20French%20Revolution.;aulast=Landes;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Oedipus%20at%20Thebes.;aulast=Knox;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Heroic%20Temper:%20Studies%20in%20Sophoclean%20Tragedy.;aulast=Knox;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=A%20Commentary%20on%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Meno.;aulast=Klein;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles,%20Dramatist%20and%20Philosopher.;aulast=Kitto;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Greek%20Tragedy:%20A%20Literary%20Study.;aulast=Kitto;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Form%20and%20Meaning%20in%20Greek%20Drama.;aulast=Kitto;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophoclean%20Drama.;aulast=Kirkwood;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Critical%20Theory%20Today:%20Revisiting%20the%20Classics.;title=Theory,%20Culture%20and%20Society;aulast=Kellner;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Did%20Plato%20Write%20Socratic%20Dialogues?;title=Essays%20on%20the%20Philosophy%20of%20Socrates,;aulast=Kahn;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Dialogue%20and%20Dialectic%20in%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Gorgias.;title=Oxford%20Studies%20in%20Ancient%20Philosophy,;aulast=Kahn;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Role%20of%20Ephialtes%20in%20the%20Rise%20of%20Athenian%20Democracy.;title=Classical%20Antiquity;aulast=Jones;__char_set=utf8



7esky, A. Gree' Tragic Poetry. /ranslated by 1. 5illon. +ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress,

BH D.7iddell, 9. G., <obert Scott, 9. S. 4ones, and <oderick 1cOen ie. A Gree'CEnglish

0e)icon. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BHMB.

7loyd$4ones, 9ugh. The 1ustice o Keus. BHNB. Cd ed. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress,

BH D.7ove, +ancy S. %:pistemology and :(change' 1ar(, +iet sche and ritical /heory.& /e" German

$riti>ue EB !Spring Summer BH N". 222222 . &ar), /iet-sche and &odernity. +ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress,

BH M.7uk[cs, GyZrgy. +istory and $lass $onsciousness* !tudies in &ar)ist Dialectics. /ranslated by

<odney 7ivingstone. ambridge, 1ass.' 1I/ #ress, BHNB.7yotard, 4ean$)ran6ois, and 4ean$7oup /h baud. 1ust Gaming. /ranslated by Wlad God ich.

1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress, BH F. 222222 . The Postmodern $ondition* A Report on 4no"ledge. /ranslated by Geoff

*ennington and *rian 1assumi. 1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress, BH E.1acleod, . W. %#olitics and the Oresteia. & 1ournal o +ellenic !tudies BRC !BH C"' BCEEE.1ar(, Oarl, and )riedrich :ngels. The &ar)CEngels Reader. :dited by <obert . /ucker. Cd ed.+ew 3ork' +orton, BHN .1cOim, <ichard. %Shame and /ruth in #lato-s Gorgias. & In Platonic (ritings 2 PlatonicReadings, ed. harles 7. Griswold, pp. DE E . +ew 3ork' <outledge, BH .1eier, hristian. The Gree' Discovery o Politics. ambridge, 1ass' 9arvard =niversity #ress,BHHR.1iller, 4ames. %Some Implications of +iet sche-s /hought for 1ar(ism.& Telos DN !)all BHN "' CCEB.1illett, Oate. !e)ual Politics. Garden ity, +.3.' 5oubleday, BHNB.1ouffe, hantal. %5emocratic iti enship and the #olitical ommunity.& In %eminists Theori-e thePolitical, ed. 4udith *utler and 4oan Scott. +ew 3ork' <outledge, BHHC.

222222 . Dimensions o Radical Democracy. +ew 3ork' >erso, BHHC.+Tgele, <ainer. %)reud, 9abermas and the 5ialectic of :nlightenment' ;n <eal and Ideal5iscourse.& /e" German $riti>ue CC !Winter BH B"' EB MC.+ichols, 1ary #. %/he Republic -s /wo Alternatives' #hilosopher$Oings and Socrates.& PoliticalTheory BC, C !1ay BH E"' CFC NE.

222222 . !ocrates and the Political $ommunity* An Ancient Debate. Albany, +.3.' State=niversity of +ew 3ork #ress, BH N.+iet sche, )riedrich. The Genealogy o &orals. B N. +ew 3ork' 1odern 7ibrary, BHB .

222222 . %;n the =ses and 5isadvantages of 9istory for 7ife.& B NE. In ?ntimely&editations, trans. <. 4. 9ollingdale. ambridge' <outledge P Oegan #aul, BH D.

222222 . The T"ilight o the #dols. B H. /ranslated by <. 4. 9ollingdale. +ew 3ork'#enguin *ooks, BHMH.

222222 . The (ill to Po"er. BHRM. /ranslated by Walter Oaufmann and <. 4. 9ollingdale.+ew 3ork' >intage *ooks, BHM .+ightingale, Andrea. %#lato-s Gorgias and :uripides- Antiope* A Study in Generic/ransformation.& $lassical Anti>uity BB, B !Apr. BHHC"' BCB EB.+orton, Anne. Republic o !igns* 0iberal Theory and American Popular $ulture. hicago'=niversity of hicago #ress, BHHD.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Republic%20of%20Signs:%20Liberal%20Theory%20and%20American%20Popular%20Culture.;aulast=Norton;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Plato%E2%80%99s%20Gorgias%20and%20Euripides%E2%80%99%20Antiope:%20A%20Study%20in%20Generic%20Transformation.;title=Classical%20Antiquity;aulast=Nightingale;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Will%20to%20Power.;aulast=Nietzsche;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Twilight%20of%20the%20Idols.;aulast=Nietzsche;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=On%20the%20Uses%20and%20Disadvantages%20of%20History%20for%20Life.;title=Untimely%20Meditations,;aulast=Nietzsche;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Genealogy%20of%20Morals.;aulast=Nietzsche;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Socrates%20and%20the%20Political%20Community:%20An%20Ancient%20Debate.;aulast=Nichols;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Republic%E2%80%99s%20Two%20Alternatives:%20Philosopher-Kings%20and%20Socrates.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Nichols;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Freud,%20Habermas%20and%20the%20Dialectic%20of%20Enlightenment:%20On%20Real%20and%20Ideal%20Discourse.;title=New%20German%20Critique;aulast=N%C3%A4gele;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Dimensions%20of%20Radical%20Democracy.;aulast=Mouffe;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Democratic%20Citizenship%20and%20the%20Political%20Community.;title=Feminists%20Theorize%20the%20Political,;aulast=Mouffe;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sexual%20Politics.;aulast=Millett;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Some%20Implications%20of%20Nietzsche%E2%80%99s%20Thought%20for%20Marxism.;title=Telos;aulast=Miller;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Greek%20Discovery%20of%20Politics.;aulast=Meier;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Shame%20and%20Truth%20in%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Gorgias.;title=Platonic%20Writings%20/%20Platonic%20Readings,;aulast=McKim;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Marx-Engels%20Reader.;aulast=Marx;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Politics%20and%20the%20Oresteia.;title=Journal%20of%20Hellenic%20Studies;aulast=Macleod;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Postmodern%20Condition:%20A%20Report%20on%20Knowledge.;aulast=Lyotard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Just%20Gaming.;aulast=Lyotard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=History%20and%20Class%20Consciousness:%20Studies%20in%20Marxist%20Dialectics.;aulast=Luk%C3%A1cs;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Marx,%20Nietzsche%20and%20Modernity.;aulast=Love;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Epistemology%20and%20Exchange:%20Marx,%20Nietzsche%20and%20Critical%20Theory.;title=New%20German%20Critique;aulast=Love;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Justice%20of%20Zeus.;aulast=Lloyd-Jones;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=A%20Greek-English%20Lexicon.;aulast=Liddell;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Greek%20Tragic%20Poetry.;aulast=Lesky;__char_set=utf8



+ussbaum, 1artha. The %ragility o Goodness* 0uc' and Ethics in Gree' 0iterature andPhilosophy. ambridge' =niversity of ambridge #ress, BH M.;-*rien, 1ary. The Politics o Reproduction. *oston' <outledge P Oegan #aul, BH B.;kin, Susan. (omen in (estern Political Thought. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress,BHNH.;stwald, 1artin. %rom Popular !overeignty to the !overeignty o 0a"* 0a", !ociety and Politicsin %i thC$entury Athens. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BH M.

#atterson, ;rlando. %reedom, vol B' %reedom in the &a'ing o (estern $ulture. +ew 3ork' *asic*ooks, BHHB.#eradotto, 4ohn. &an in the &iddle oice* /ame and /arration in the Odyssey. #rinceton, +.4.'#rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR.#eterson <ichard. Democratic Philosophy and the Politics o 4no"ledge. =niversity #ark'#ennsylvania State =niversity #ress, BHHM.#ickard$ ambridge, A. The Dramatic %estivals o Athens. Cd ed. ;(ford' ;(ford =niversity #ress,BHM .#itkin, 9anna. %4ustice' ;n <elating #ublic and #rivate.& Political Theory H, D !Aug. BH B"' DRDCM.#lass, #aul. %#hilosophical Anonymity and Irony in the #latonic 5ialogues.& American 1ournal oPhilology F, D !BHME"' CFE N . #lato. Gorgias* A Revised Te)t "ith #ntroduction and $ommentary. /ranslated and edited by :. <.5odds. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BHFH.

222222 . Gorgias. /ranslated by /erence Irwin. ;(ford' larendon #ress, BHNH. 222222 . Platonis Opera. :dited by 4ohn *urnet. BHRC. ;(ford' larendon #ress,BHMC.#odlecki, Anthony 4. The Political ac'ground o Aeschylean Tragedy. Ann Arbor' =niversity of1ichigan #ress, BHMM.#ohlen , 1a(. Aus Platos (erde-eit* Philologische ?ntersuchungen. *erlin' Weidmann,BHBD.#omeroy, Sarah *. Goddesses, (hores, (ives, and !laves* (omen in $lassical Anti>uity. +ew3ork' Schocken *ooks, BHNF.#opper, Oarl. The Open !ociety and #ts Enemies, vol B' The !pell o Plato. BHEH. Fth ed.#rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHMM.#oster, 1ark. $ritical Theory and Poststructuralism. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress,BH H.#8t , #eter. %+iet sche and ritical /heory.& Telos FR !Winter BH B C".<abinowit , +ancy. %)rom )orce to #ersuasion' Aeschylus- Oresteia as osmogonic1yth.& Ramus BR, C !BH B"' BFH HB.<andall, 4. 9. Plato* Dramatist o the 0i e o Reason. +ew 3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress,BHNR.<einhardt, 1ark. The Art o eing %ree. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BHHN.<eiss, /imothy 4. Tragedy and Truth* !tudies in the Development o a Renaissance and/eoclassical Discourse. +ew 9aven, onn.' 3ale =niversity #ress, BH R.<obbins, *ruce, ed. The Phantom Public !phere. 1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress,BHHD.<oberts, 5eborah. Apollo and +is Oracle in the Oresteia. GZttingen' >andenhoeck P <uprecht,BH E.<occo, hristopher. %*etween 1odernity and #ostmodernity.& Political Theory CC, B !)eb. BHHE"'NB HN.<ose, Gillian. The &elancholy !cience* An #ntroduction to the Thought o Theodor Adorno. +ew3ork' olumbia =niversity #ress, BHN .<yan, 1ary #. (omen in Public* et"een anners and allots, 5:8;95::<. *altimore' 4ohns9opkins =niversity #ress, BHHR.Sallis, 4ohn. eing and 0ogos* The (ay o the Platonic Dialogue. #ittsburgh, #a.' 5u2uesne=niversity #ress, BHNF.Sa(onhouse, Arlene. %/he #hilosophy of the #articular and the =niversality of the ity' Socrates-:ducation of :uthyphro.& Political Theory BM, C !1ay BH ".

222222 . %/he /yranny of <eason in the World of the #olis.& American Political !cienceRevie" C, E !5ec. BH "' BCMB NF.

222222 . %An =nspoken /heme in #lato-s Gorgias* War.& #nterpretation BB, C !1ay BH D"'BEC EE.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Philosophical%20Anonymity%20and%20Irony%20in%20the%20Platonic%20Dialogues.;title=American%20Journal%20of%20Philology;aulast=Plass;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=An%20Unspoken%20Theme%20in%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Gorgias:%20War.;title=Interpretation;aulast=Saxonhouse;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Tyranny%20of%20Reason%20in%20the%20World%20of%20the%20Polis.;title=American%20Political%20Science%20Review;aulast=Saxonhouse;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Philosophy%20of%20the%20Particular%20and%20the%20Universality%20of%20the%20City:%20Socrates%E2%80%99%20Education%20of%20Euthyphro.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Saxonhouse;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Being%20and%20Logos:%20The%20Way%20of%20the%20Platonic%20Dialogue.;aulast=Sallis;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Women%20in%20Public:%20Between%20Banners%20and%20Ballots,%201825%E2%80%931880.;aulast=Ryan;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Melancholy%20Science:%20An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Thought%20of%20Theodor%20Adorno.;aulast=Rose;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Between%20Modernity%20and%20Postmodernity.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Rocco;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Apollo%20and%20His%20Oracle%20in%20the%20Oresteia.;aulast=Roberts;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Phantom%20Public%20Sphere.;aulast=Robbins;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Tragedy%20and%20Truth:%20Studies%20in%20the%20Development%20of%20a%20Renaissance%20and%20Neoclassical%20Discourse.;aulast=Reiss;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Art%20of%20Being%20Free.;aulast=Reinhardt;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato:%20Dramatist%20of%20the%20Life%20of%20Reason.;aulast=Randall;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=From%20Force%20to%20Persuasion:%20Aeschylus%E2%80%99%20Oresteia%20as%20Cosmogonic%20Myth.;title=Ramus;aulast=Rabinowitz;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Nietzsche%20and%20Critical%20Theory.;title=Telos;aulast=P%C3%BCtz;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Critical%20Theory%20and%20Poststructuralism.;aulast=Poster;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Open%20Society%20and%20Its%20Enemies,;aulast=Popper;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Goddesses,%20Whores,%20Wives,%20and%20Slaves:%20Women%20in%20Classical%20Antiquity.;aulast=Pomeroy;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Aus%20Platos%20Werdezeit:%20Philologische%20Untersuchungen.;aulast=Pohlenz;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Political%20Background%20of%20Aeschylean%20Tragedy.;aulast=Podlecki;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Platonis%20Opera.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Gorgias.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Gorgias:%20A%20Revised%20Text%20with%20Introduction%20and%20Commentary.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Philosophical%20Anonymity%20and%20Irony%20in%20the%20Platonic%20Dialogues.;title=American%20Journal%20of%20Philology;aulast=Plass;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Justice:%20On%20Relating%20Public%20and%20Private.;title=Political%20Theory;aulast=Pitkin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Dramatic%20Festivals%20of%20Athens.;aulast=Pickard-Cambridge;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Democratic%20Philosophy%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Knowledge.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Man%20in%20the%20Middle%20Voice:%20Name%20and%20Narration%20in%20the%20Odyssey.;aulast=Peradotto;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Freedom,;aulast=Patterson;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=From%20Popular%20Sovereignty%20to%20the%20Sovereignty%20of%20Law:%20Law,%20Society%20and%20Politics%20in%20Fifth-Century%20Athens.;aulast=Ostwald;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Women%20in%20Western%20Political%20Thought.;aulast=Okin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Politics%20of%20Reproduction.;aulast=O%E2%80%99Brien;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Fragility%20of%20Goodness:%20Luck%20and%20Ethics%20in%20Greek%20Literature%20and%20Philosophy.;aulast=Nussbaum;__char_set=utf8



Scodel, <uth. !ophocles. *oston' /wayne, BH E.Seale, 5avid. ision and !tagecra t in !ophocles. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress,BH C.Segal, harles #. %Greek /ragedy and Society' A Structuralist #erspective.& In id., #nterpretingGree' Tragedy* &yth, Poetry, Te)t. Ithaca, +.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH M.

222222 . %/he 1usic of the Sphin(.& In $ontemporary 0iterary +ermeneutics and#nterpretation o $lassical Te)ts, ed. Stephanus Oresic. ;ttawa' ;ttawa =niversity #ress,

BH B. 222222 . %Sophocles- #raise of 1an and the onflicts of the Antigone. & Arion D, C !SummerBHME"' EM MM.

222222 . %Sophocles.& In Ancient (riters* Greece and Rome. +ew 3ork' harles Scribner-sSons, BH C.

222222 . %/ime, /heater, and Onowledge in the /ragedy of ;edipus.& In Edipo* #l teatrogreco e la cultura europea, ed. *runo Gentili and <oberto #retagostini. Vuaderni urbinati dicultura classica' Atti del convegno interna ionale, D. <ome' :di ioni dell-Ateneo, BH M.

222222 . Tragedy and $ivili-ation* An #nterpretation o !ophocles. ambridge, 1ass.'9arvard =niversity #ress, BH B.Sesonske, Ale(ander. Plato s Republic* #nterpretation and $riticism. *elmont alif.' Wadsworth#ublishing, BHMM.Sheppard, 4. /. The (isdom o !ophocles. 7ondon' G. Allen P =nwin, BHEN.Shorey, #aul. (hat Plato !aid. hicago' =niversity of hicago #ress, BHDD.Slater, #. :. The Glory o +era* Gree' &ythology and the Gree' %amily. *oston' *eacon #ress,BHM .Snell, *runo. The Discovery o the &ind* The Gree' Origins o European Thought. /ranslated by /.G. <osenmeyer. BHFD. +ew 3ork' 5over, BH C.Sophocles. The Oedipus Tyrannus. :dited by 1. 7. :arle. +ew 3ork' American *ook o.,BHRB.

222222 . The Oedipus Tyrannus. :dited by <. . 4ebb. ambridge' ambridge =niversity#ress, B HN.Springborg, #atricia. %9annah Arendt and the lassical <epublican /radition.& In Thin'ing,

1udging, %reedom, ed. G. /. Oaplan and . S. Oessler, pp. H BN. Sydney' G. Allen P =nwin,

BH H.Strauss, 7eo. The $ity and &an. +ew 3ork' <and 1c+ally, BHME./aplin, ;liver. %:motion and 1eaning in Greek /ragedy.& In Gree' Tragedy* &odern Essays in$riticism, ed. :rich Segal. +ew 3ork' 9arper P <ow, BH D./aylor, A. :. Plato* The &an and +is (or'. BHCM. Dd ed. +ew 3ork' 5ial #ress, BHCH./homson, George. Aeschylus and Athens. +ew 3ork' International #ublishers, BHFR./onelli, )ranco. !ophocles Oedipus and the Tale o the Theatre. <avenna' 7ongo :ditore,BH D.>ernant, 4ean$#ierre. %Greek /ragedy' #roblems of Interpretation.& In 0anguage o $riticism andthe !ciences o &an, ed. <ichard 1acksey and :ugene 5onato. *altimore' 4ohns 9opkins #ress,BHNR.

222222 . %/ensions and Ambiguities in Greek /ragedy.& In 4.$#. >ernant and #ierre >idal$+a2uet, &yth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, trans. 4anet 7loyd. +ew 3ork' Qone *ooks,BH R.>ernant, 4ean$#ierre, and #ierre >idal$+a2uet. &yth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece. /ranslatedby 4anet 7loyd. +ew 3ork' Qone *ooks, BH R. >ersenyi, 7as lo. &an s &easure* A !tudy o the Gree' #mage o &an rom +omer to!ophocles. Albany' State =niversity of +ew 3ork #ress, BHNE. >ickers, *rian. To"ards Gree' Tragedy* Drama, &yth, !ociety. BHND. +ew 3ork' 7ongman,BHNH.>illa, 5ana. %#ostmodernism and the #ublic Sphere.& American Political !cience Revie" M, D!Sept. BHHC"' NBC CB.>irilio, #aul. The 0ost Dimension. +ew 3ork' Semiote(t!e", BHHB.>oegelin, :ric. Plato and Aristotle, vol. C' Order and +istory. *aton <ouge' 7ouisiana State=niversity #ress, BHFN.

Waldock, A. 4. A. !ophocles the Dramatist. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress,BHFB.Warner, 1ichael. %/he 1ass #ublic and the 1ass Sub ect.& In The Phantom Public !phere, ed.*ruce <obbins, pp, CDE FM. 1inneapolis' =niversity of 1innesota #ress, BHHD.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Myth%20and%20Tragedy%20in%20Ancient%20Greece.;aulast=Vernant;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Man%E2%80%99s%20Measure:%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Greek%20Image%20of%20Man%20from%20Homer%20to%20Sophocles.;aulast=Versenyi;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Mass%20Public%20and%20the%20Mass%20Subject.;title=The%20Phantom%20Public%20Sphere,;aulast=Warner;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles%20the%20Dramatist.;aulast=Waldock;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato%20and%20Aristotle,;aulast=Voegelin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Lost%20Dimension.;aulast=Virilio;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Postmodernism%20and%20the%20Public%20Sphere.;title=American%20Political%20Science%20Review;aulast=Villa;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Towards%20Greek%20Tragedy:%20Drama,%20Myth,%20Society.;aulast=Vickers;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Man%E2%80%99s%20Measure:%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Greek%20Image%20of%20Man%20from%20Homer%20to%20Sophocles.;aulast=Versenyi;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Myth%20and%20Tragedy%20in%20Ancient%20Greece.;aulast=Vernant;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Tensions%20and%20Ambiguities%20in%20Greek%20Tragedy.;title=Myth%20and%20Tragedy%20in%20Ancient%20Greece,;aulast=Vernant;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Greek%20Tragedy:%20Problems%20of%20Interpretation.;title=Language%20of%20Criticism%20and%20the%20Sciences%20of%20Man,;aulast=Vernant;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Oedipus%20and%20the%20Tale%20of%20the%20Theatre.;aulast=Tonelli;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Aeschylus%20and%20Athens.;aulast=Thomson;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato:%20The%20Man%20and%20His%20Work.;aulast=Taylor;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Emotion%20and%20Meaning%20in%20Greek%20Tragedy.;title=Greek%20Tragedy:%20Modern%20Essays%20in%20Criticism,;aulast=Taplin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20City%20and%20Man.;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Hannah%20Arendt%20and%20the%20Classical%20Republican%20Tradition.;title=Thinking,%20Judging,%20Freedom,;aulast=Springborg;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Oedipus%20Tyrannus.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Oedipus%20Tyrannus.;aulast=;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Discovery%20of%20the%20Mind:%20The%20Greek%20Origins%20of%20European%20Thought.;aulast=Snell;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Glory%20of%20Hera:%20Greek%20Mythology%20and%20the%20Greek%20Family.;aulast=Slater;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=What%20Plato%20Said.;aulast=Shorey;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Wisdom%20of%20Sophocles.;aulast=Sheppard;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Plato%E2%80%99s%20Republic:%20Interpretation%20and%20Criticism.;aulast=Sesonske;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Tragedy%20and%20Civilization:%20An%20Interpretation%20of%20Sophocles.;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Time,%20Theater,%20and%20Knowledge%20in%20the%20Tragedy%20of%20Oedipus.;title=Edipo:%20Il%20teatro%20greco%20e%20la%20cultura%20europea,;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Sophocles.;title=Ancient%20Writers:%20Greece%20and%20Rome.;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Sophocles%E2%80%99%20Praise%20of%20Man%20and%20the%20Conflicts%20of%20the%20Antigone.;title=Arion;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Music%20of%20the%20Sphinx.;title=Contemporary%20Literary%20Hermeneutics%20and%20Interpretation%20of%20Classical%20Texts,;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Greek%20Tragedy%20and%20Society:%20A%20Structuralist%20Perspective.;title=Interpreting%20Greek%20Tragedy:%20Myth,%20Poetry,%20Text.;aulast=Segal;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Vision%20and%20Stagecraft%20in%20Sophocles.;aulast=Seale;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles.;aulast=Scodel;__char_set=utf8



Whitebrook, 4oel. %/he #olitics of <edemption.& Telos MD !Spring BH F".Whitehead, Alfred +orth. Process and Reality* An Essay in $osmology. :dited by 5. <. Griffin and5. W. Sherburne. +ew 3ork' )ree #ress, BHN .Whitman, edric. The +eroic Parado)* Essays on +omer, !ophocles and Aristophanes. Ithaca,+.3.' ornell =niversity #ress, BH R.Wilamowit $1oellendorf, =lrich von. Platon* !ein 0eben und seine (er'e. C vols. BHBH. Dd ed.,*erlin' Weidmann, BHFH MC.

Williams, *ernard. !hame and /ecessity. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress, BHHD.Winnington$Ingram, <. #. !ophocles* An #nterpretation. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress,BH R.

222222 . !tudies in Aeschylus. ambridge' ambridge =niversity #ress, BH D.Wiser, 4ames 7. %/he )orce of <eason' ;n <eading #lato-s Gorgias. & In The Ethical Dimension oPolitical 0i e* Essays in +onor o 1ohn +. +allo"ell, ed. )rancis anavan. 5urham, +. .' 5uke=niversity #ress, BH D.Wolin, Sheldon. %5emocracy and the Welfare State' /heoretical onnectionsbetween !taatsr3son and (ohl ahrtstaatr3son. & In The Presence o the Past* Essays on the !tateand the $onstitution, pp. BFB NH. *altimore' 4ohns 9opkins =niversity #ress, BH H.

222222 . %5emocracy in the 5iscourse of #ostmodernism.& !ocial Research FN, B !BHHR"'F DR.

222222 . %#olitical /heory as a >ocation.& American Political !cience Revie" MD, E !5ec.BHMH"' BRMC C. 222222 . Politics and ision* $ontinuity and #nnovation in (estern PoliticalThought. *oston' 7ittle, *rown, BHMB.3eatman, Anna. %*eyond +atural <ight' /he onditions for =niversal iti enship.& !ocial$oncept E, C !4une BH "' D DC.Qeitlin, )roma I. %/he 5ynamics of 1isogyny' 1yth and 1ythmaking inthe Oresteia. & Arethusa BB, B C !Spring )all BHN "' BEH B.

222222 . %#laying the ;ther' /heater, /heatricality and the )eminine in Greek 5rama.&In /othing to Do "ith Dionysus@ Athenian Drama in #ts !ocial $onte)t, ed. 4ohn A. Winkler and)roma I. Qeitlin, pp. MD HF. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress, BHHR.

222222 . %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society in Athenian 5rama.& In Gree' Tragedy and

Political Theory, ed. 4. #eter :uben, pp. BRB EB. *erkeley' =niversity of alifornia #ress,BH M. 222222 . %/hebes' /heater of Self and Society in Athenian 5rama.& In /othing to Do "ithDionysus@ Athenian Drama in #ts !ocial $onte)t, ed. 4ohn A. Winkler and )roma I. Qeitlin, pp.BDR MN. #rinceton, +.4.' #rinceton =niversity #ress' BHHR.

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Thebes:%20Theater%20of%20Self%20and%20Society%20in%20Athenian%20Drama.;title=Nothing%20to%20Do%20with%20Dionysus?%20Athenian%20Drama%20in%20Its%20Social%20Context,;aulast=Zeitlin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Thebes:%20Theater%20of%20Self%20and%20Society%20in%20Athenian%20Drama.;title=Greek%20Tragedy%20and%20Political%20Theory,;aulast=Zeitlin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Playing%20the%20Other:%20Theater,%20Theatricality%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Greek%20Drama.;title=Nothing%20to%20Do%20with%20Dionysus?%20Athenian%20Drama%20in%20Its%20Social%20Context,;aulast=Zeitlin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Dynamics%20of%20Misogyny:%20Myth%20and%20Mythmaking%20in%20the%20Oresteia.;title=Arethusa;aulast=Zeitlin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Beyond%20Natural%20Right:%20The%20Conditions%20for%20Universal%20Citizenship.;title=Social%20Concept;aulast=Yeatman;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Politics%20and%20Vision:%20Continuity%20and%20Innovation%20in%20Western%20Political%20Thought.;aulast=Wolin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Political%20Theory%20as%20a%20Vocation.;title=American%20Political%20Science%20Review;aulast=Wolin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Democracy%20in%20the%20Discourse%20of%20Postmodernism.;title=Social%20Research;aulast=Wolin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=Democracy%20and%20the%20Welfare%20State:%20Theoretical%20Connections%20between%20Staatsr%C3%A4son%20and%20Wohlfahrtstaatr%C3%A4son.;title=The%20Presence%20of%20the%20Past:%20Essays%20on%20the%20State%20and%20the%20Constitution,;aulast=Wolin;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Force%20of%20Reason:%20On%20Reading%20Plato%E2%80%99s%20Gorgias.;title=The%20Ethical%20Dimension%20of%20Political%20Life:%20Essays%20in%20Honor%20of%20John%20H.%20Hallowell,;aulast=Wiser;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Studies%20in%20Aeschylus.;aulast=Winnington-Ingram;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Sophocles:%20An%20Interpretation.;aulast=Winnington-Ingram;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Shame%20and%20Necessity.;aulast=Williams;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Platon:%20Sein%20Leben%20und%20seine%20Werke.;aulast=Wilamowitz-Moellendorf;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=The%20Heroic%20Paradox:%20Essays%20on%20Homer,%20Sophocles%20and%20Aristophanes.;aulast=Whitman;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;title=Process%20and%20Reality:%20An%20Essay%20in%20Cosmology.;aulast=Whitehead;__char_set=utf8

http://ucelinks.cdlib.org:8888/sfx_local?sid=escholarship:ucpress;genre=book;atitle=The%20Politics%20of%20Redemption.;title=Telos;aulast=Whitebrook;__char_set=utf8

Tragedy Enlightenment-libre

Documents

Transcript of Tragedy Enlightenment-libre