CITIZENS TO LORDS A Social History of Western Political Thought From Antiqnity to the Middle Ages a ELLEN MEIKSINS WOOD M VERSO tendon « New YrkJe 3 Wée 2008 First published by Verso 2008 Copyright © Ellen Meiksins Wood 2008 AML ght reserved ‘The moral nigh of the author has teen asserted 13579108642 Vero UK. 6 Meand Sucet, Landon WF OFG USA: 180 Varick Stee, Nevw York, NY 10014-4606 ‘wornsersobookscom Verso isthe imprint of New Left Books ISEN-3: 978-1-84567-204 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is avilable fom the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication Data ‘A canal sexo for chin book is available from the Libraty of Congress “Typeset in Sabor by Hewer Text UK Lad, Edinburgh Printed in che USA by Maple Vail In memory of Neal WoodCONTENTS Acknowledgements 1 ‘the Social History of Political Theory 2. The Ancient Greek Polis 3. From Polis to Empire 4 The Middle Ages Conclision Index 233 27ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘As so often before, am particularly grateful 10 George Conmineh A evread the whole manuscript and made his cnstomarily generous sna insightful suggestions. My thanks also to Paul Cartledge, Janet Goleman and Gordon Schochet, who read parts of the manuscript stud nade uneful vomunents but cannot, of course, he held responsible for sry failures on my part to take good advice. Perry Anderson kindly dered to my last-minute request for a quick reading of the whole text and made some vety helpful suggestions. And special thanks to Ed Broadbent, who brilliantly played the role of every writer's dream audience, the intelligent general reader. Lowe a great deal to his keenly Critical eye, together with his unfailing support and encouragement. My greatest debt is to Neal Wood. Many years ago, we decided that one day we would writea social history ot political theory together. Somchiw we never yor aivund £058. There were always other projects to embark on and complete. Yet when, after his death, I set out to do it'on my own, he remained in a sense the co-author. tt was he who y of Bs ight; it was he who coined the phrase, the ‘social history of political theory’ and this project would have been inconceivable without his rich body of aan hig example of sch passionate engagement. cy combined withTHE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY ‘What is Political Theory? Feery complex civilization with a state and organized leadership is bound to generate reflection on the relations between leader and led, rulers and subjets, command and obedience. Whether it takes the form of systematic philosophy. poetry, parable or proverb, in oral traditions or in the written word, we can call it political thought. But the subject of this book is one very particular mode of political thinking, that emerged in the very particular historical conditions of ancient Groece and developed over two millennia in what we nov call Europe and its colonial ourposts." For better or worse. the Greeks invented their oven distinctive mode of political heory, a systematic and analytical interrogation of political principles, fuli of laboriously constructed definitions auxd adversarial argumentation, applying critical reason to questioning the very foundations and legitimacy of traditional moral rules and the principles ‘of political right. While there have been many other ways of thinking about politics in the Western world, what we think of as the classics 1 Political” though, in an of is forms, assumes the existence of political organ ization. For the purpess of chis book, shal ell that form of organization the ‘ate’ defining it broadly erengh ra encorspace wide variety of Foers, Frm the pelis al the ancient bureaucratic kingdom eo the modern nation state ~ alghough throughout hoods, we chal often have excanion to take note of he differences among various Pes of state, The state, theny isa “coniplex of institutions by means cf sich the poner uf die society is organized on a basis superior to kinship an organization of Power that entails a claim "to parsmountcy in the application of naked force to social Droblems and consss of “formal, specialized instruments of coercion (Morton ric, The Evolution of Political Sty. New York: Random House. 1968. pp. 229-30). The “as embraces les inne intons = howls dans, Knap wows and performs commen rocal functions that such ineitatons cannot carry ou2 CITIZENS TO LoRDs of Western political thought, ancient and modern, belong to the tradition of political theory established hy the Greeks ‘Other ancient civilizations in many ways more advanced than the Greeks — in everything from agncultural techniques to commerce, navigation, and every conceivable craft or high art ~ produced vast literatures on every human practice, as well as speculations about the origins of life and the formation of the universe. But, in general, the political order was not treated as an object of systematic critical speculation, ‘We can, for example, contrast the ancient Greek mode of political speculation about principles of political order with the philosophy of ethical precept, aphorism, advice and example produced by the far ‘more complex and advanced civilization of China, which had its own tich and varied! tradition of political thought. Confucian philosophy, for instance, takes the form of aphorisms on appropriate conduct, proverbial sayings and exemplary anecdotes, conveying its political Tessons not by means of argumentation but by subule allusions with complex layers of meaning. Another civilization more advanced than classical Greece, India, produced a Hindu tradition of political thought Lacking the hind of analytical and theoretical speu acterized Indian works of moral philosophy, logic and epistemolozy. ‘expressing its commitment to existing political arrangements in didactic fou wi jon that cha systematic argumentation. We can also contest classical political philosophy to the earlier Homeric poetry of heroic ideals. models and examples or even to the political poetry of Solon, on the eve uf the classical polis. The tradition of political theory as we know it in the West can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers — notably, Protagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle — and it has produced a series of “canon” ical’ thinkers whose names have hecome familiar even to those who hhave never read their work: St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Fiobbes, Locke, Kousseau, Hegel, Muli, and so on. the writings of these thinkers ate exttemely varied, hut they do have certain things in common. Although they often analyze the state as it is, their principal enterprise is criticism and prescription. They all have some conception of what constitutes the right and proper ardering of sociery and government. What is conceived as ‘right’ is often based on some conception of justice and the morally good Ife, but st may also deve from practical reflections about what is required to maintain peace, security and material well-being, Some political theorists offer blueprints for an ideally just state. Others specify reforms of existing government and proposals for sue SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 3 sng public policy For all of them, the central questions have to nt ep ould perm and how, or what form of government is ge win they generally agree that i is nor enough to ask and answer ee dons about the fest form of government: we rust ako exiecaly eet ie grounds on which sich judgments are made. Underlying cree ations i always some conception of human nature, those MeGhineoin human beings that must be nurtured or controled in order seeeilfeve a right and proper social orcler Political theorists have £° ned their human ideals and asked what kind of social and political cirernents are required to realize this vision of humanity And when atest sel as these are ake, others may net be far off why and sire har conditions ought we to abey those who govern us, and are swe exer entitled t0 disobey or rebel? These inay acon obvious questions, but the very idea of asking them, the ery idea thatthe principles of government or the obligation toobey authority are proper subjects for systematic rellection and the Epplicauin of ettieal teason, cannot be taker for granted. Political theory represents as important a cultural milestone as does systematic philosophical or scientific reflection on the nature of matter, the earth find heavenly bodies. If anything, the invention of political cheory i harder to explain than is the emergence of natucal philosophy and Th what follows, we shall explore the histovical conditions in which political theory was invented and how it developed in specific Historical contexts, always keeping in mind that the classics of poliical dheory wele wiiten in response t pasticular historical Circumstances. The periods of greatest cteatvity in politieal theory have tended to be those historical moments when social and political confi has erupted in particularly urgent ways, with far-reaching consequences; but even in calmer times. the questions addressed by political theorists have presented themselves in historically specific “This means several thines. Political theorists mav speak to_us through the centuries. As commentators onthe human condition, they ‘may have something vo say forall times. But they are ike all buat beings, historical creatures: and we shall have a much richer under- standing of what they have to say, and even how it might shed light ‘on our own historical moment, when we have some idea of why they said it to whom they said it with whom they were debating (explicitly or implicitly), how their immediate world looked to them, and what hey believed should be changed or preserved. ‘This is nor simply matter of biographical detail or even historical “background”. Toa CITIZENS TO LORDS tunderstand what political theorists are saying requires knowing what ‘questions they are trying ta answer, and those questions confront them ‘not simply as philosophical abstractions but as specific problems posed by specific historical conditions, in the context of specific practical activities, social relations, pressing issues, grievances and conflicts. The History of Political Theory This understanding of political theory as a historical product has not always prevailed among scholars who write about the history of political thought; and it probably sill needs to be justified, sot least axainst the charge that by historicizing the great works of political theory we ddemean and trivialize them, denying them any meaning and significance beyond their own historical moutent, Ushall uy w explain and defend my reasons for proceeding as 1 do, but that reauies, first, a sketch of how the history of political thought has been studied in the recent past. In the 19603 asnl 70s, at a tine of sevival for the study of political theory, academic specialists used to debate endlessly about the nature and fate of their discipline. But in general political theorists, especially in American universities, were expected wv embrace he division of political studies into the ‘empirical’ and the ‘normative’. In one camp was the real political science, claiming to deal scientifically with the faxt> of political life as they are, and in the other was ‘theory’, confined to the ivory tower of political philosophy and reflecting not on wh: is but on what ought to be. This bartex: division of the discipline undoubtedly owed much to the culture of the Cold War. which generally encanraged the withdrawal of academics from trenchant social criticism. At any rate, political science lost much of its critical edge. Ihe object of study for this so- called ‘science’ was not creative human action biir rather politieal ‘behaviour’, which could, it was claimed, be comprehended by quan- titative methods appropnate to the involuntary motions of material hodies, atoms or plants This view of political science was certainly challenged by some political theorists, notably Sheldon Wolin, whose Politics and Vision elognently ascerted the importance of creative vision in political analysis? But at least for a time, many political theorists seemed happy enough 2 Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innuation ie Western Plitial Thought wae Fist published in 1960. The most recent expanded edition was published by Princeton University Prov in 2006, HE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 5 “behiw= 1 place assigned to them by the ultra-empiric me dominant in US pitieal scence departments tscemed souraiily congenial t0 the disciples of Leo Strauss, who formed an sei tiance with the behavioural, each faction agreeing % (het te iilety oF she otber' triton? Themis would espe Cphilocophers in peace to spin thei intricate conceptual webs, wee the normative’ theorists Would never cast a critical eye at their wa taal caleagues political analysis. The Straussian attack on sararcisy’ was directed against other theorists, in self-proclaimed “fsoce of universal and absolute truths against the relativism of ceernitys andy aldbvugh they would later emerge at influential Mcalopuce of neoconservatism and as something like pailosophical vents to the repime of George W. Bush Straussian political theorists ti an easlier generation we on the whole content to pursue their stecrirnnry and antimodernist (if not antidemocratic) political agenda Co the philosophical plane ~ except when they ventured completely Gutside the wails of the aualemy 10 write specches for right wing trliviciane. Their ‘empiricist’ colleagues seem to have understood Ghat Stranssians, with their esoteric, even cabaliste philosophical provceupations, represeuted nu challenge wo the shallowness and vay ‘6f ‘empirical’ political science. to accept the 4 tn is or che place to engage m the deta abu Lew Susu’ own puta ews The ie heres hs approach othe dy of poli theory Born n Germany 1 185, Srase enigrted co x US in 1937 and epeialy alts his apontinent f0 thecal at the Uisersty of Chicago in 148 exerted at inuence on the sty ‘of political ec in North Aneta, reducing a school of interpretation which would he tated on by bis ipl due cadets. The Strwecan=pproach ool theery begins fom the premise that politcal plosophers, whe are concerned with ory ofthe canon to daguse hc ides, inorder rx tobe perccued as suber “They have therlore, aconding to Sraussans, acopted ah esene mode oF WH thich obliges scholayincerctes to read between the lines. This compulsion, the Seraussians seem wo guest, has bon agarvanel by the onset of modern ad omtculty mass democracy which hater caer virtue they mayo may et hae) 2re inevitably dominated by opinion ar, appre host o uth and knowledge Seransiane regard themselves a piieged heir acces to the tre meaning of peli pilesonh, taking enormous ier of iterpeaion, sich say Gout che eral est In way ew ter sclars would allow tema This approach sends, needless £0 sy to lint the possibilities of debate between ‘sean and those ouside che fraternity sine exer interpretations of text can be "ued ou a Priors blind o iden ‘sete’ meaings. However much Ssussians fay have denigrated ‘empirica? political scence, their mathed has reinforced the ‘cosure of ‘normative’ pelitical theory in ite own elipite dora, and enelive fe6 CITIZENS TO LORDS Yet Straussians were not alonein accepting the neat division between At least, there was a widespread view that grubbing around in the realities of politics, while all right for some, was not what political theorists should «lo, The groundbreaking work of the Canadian political theorist, C.B- Macpherson, who had introduced a different approach to the study of political theory by situating seventeenth-century English thinkers in the historical context of what he ealled a ‘possessive market society", proved to belittle more than a detour from the mainstream of Anglo- American scholarship. Scholars who studied and taught the history of political thought, the ‘classics? of the Western ‘Ganon’, did noc always subscribe to the Straussian variety of anti-historicismy; but they were often even more averse ro history. Many treated the ‘greats’ as pure minds floating free above the political (ays and any attempt to plant these thinkers on firm historical ground, any attempt to treat them as living and breathing historical beings passionately engaged in the politics of theit own time and plicc, would be dismissed as tsivialization, demeaning great men and reducing them to mere publi- cists, pamphleteers and propagandists.> ‘What distinguished teal political philosophy from simple ‘ideotogy", according, to this view, was that it rose above political senagele and partisanship. It tackled universal and perennial problems, secking principles of social order and fhuman development valid for all human beings in all times and places. The questions raised hy rue political philosophers are it was argued, intrinsically ranshistorical: what does iu meant to be truly human? What kind of society permits the full development of that humanity? Whar are the viniversal principles of right order for individuals and societies? 1k seems not to have occurred to proponents of this view that even such “universal” questions cold he asked and anciwored in nye dl served certain immediate political interests rather than others, ot that ‘hese questions and answers might even be intended as passionately partisan. For instance, the human ideale np tell us much about their social and political commitments and where empirical and normative, or hetween theory and practi 4 The Political Theory of Posessive Individual: Hobbes to Locke, was published by Oxfont University Press in 1962, but Macpherson had already published articles in ‘the 19508 applying hs contextual approach. Although Ihave disagreements with him and regan his deal-sype ‘possessive market society” aka tather ahistorical abstraction, there can hele denbs thar he broke impereant new grea 5 See, for insance, Dante Germino, Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political "Theory (New Yorks Harper and Reo 1967). SHE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 7 and in the conficts of their day. The failure to acknuvledge sea i fakes cholo ew lle benef in trying to understand the dassics by situating them in their author's time and place. The ee yextualization of political thought or the “sociology of knowledge wight ell us something about the ideas and motivations of lesser mrartale and ideologues, but it could tell us nothing worth knowing Shout a great philosopher, a genius like Plato. “This aliost naive abistoricism was bound to produce a reaction, and a very different school of thought emerged, which has since over- fuken its rivals. What has come to be called the Cambridge School rats, at fest on the face of it, t0 go to the other extreme by radically resting the works, great and small of poiial theory and denying them any wider meaning beyond the very local moment of their Creation. The must effective exponent of this approach, Quentin Skinner, in the introduction to his classic text, The Foundations of ‘Modern Political Thought, gives an account of his method that seems directly antithetival 1 the dichowomies on which the ahistorical anprch was based against the sharp dsintion a polial ilosophy and ideology and the facile opposition of ‘empirical’ to reste nto anges Shinn meaner the hinory of political theory by treating it essentially as the history of ideologies, and this requires a detailed contextualization. ‘For Itakeit that political life itself sexs the main problerss for the political theorist, causing a certain range of issues to appear problematic, and a corresponding range of questions to become the leading subjects of debate."* “The principal benefit of chis approach, Skinner waites, is that it equips us ‘with a way of gaining greater insight into its author's mean- ing than we can ever hope to achieve simply from reading the text itself “over and over again” as the exponents uf he “textuslist” approach have charscteristically proposed.” But there is also another advantage: It will now he evidene why I wish to. maintain that. if the history of political theory were to be written essentially as a history of ideologies, one outcome might be 2 clearer understanding of the links between political theory and practice. For it now appears that. in recovering the terms of the normative vocabulary available ro any 6 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Roluical Though, Volume I: The enasance Carbide: Cambie Users Es 19788 CITIZENS TO LORDS sven agent for the description of his political behaviour, we are at the same rime indicating one of the constraints upon his behaviour itself. This suggests that, in order to explain why such an agent acts as he docs, we are bound to make some reference to this vocabulary, since it evidently figures as one of the determinants of his action. ‘This in turn suggests that, if we were to focus our histories on the study of these vocabularies, we might be able to illustrate the exact, ‘ays im which the explanation of political behaviour depends upon the study of political thought. Skinner then proceeded to constrict a history of Western political thought in the Renaissance and the age of Reformation, especially the notion of the state as it acquired its modern meaning, by exploring the political vocabularies available to political dhinkers anal autor and the specific sets of questions that history had put on their agenda. His main strategy. here as elsewhere in his work, was to cast his net more widely than historians of political thought have custouiatily done, considering noc just the leading eheorists but, as he put it, ‘the more general social and inxellectual matrix out of which their works arosc’.* He looked not only at the work of tle greats bun also at snore ‘ephemeral contemporary contributions to social and political thought’. as a means of gaining access tothe available vocabularies and the prevailing assumptions about political society that wete shaping debate in specific times and places Skinner's approach has certain very clear strengths; and other merabers of the Cambridge School have also applied these principles, ‘fica very effectively wv the analysis of specific thinkers or ‘traditions of discourse’, especially those of early madern Fngland. The propo- sition that the political questions addressed by political theorists, judhuding the great ones, are thrown up by real political life and are shaped by the historical condi more nor less than good common sense. ‘Bur much depends on what the Cambridge School regards a8 rel ans in which they arise coome handly different meaning than might be inferred from Skinner's reference to the ‘soctal and intellectual matrix’, It turns out that the ‘social’ matrix has litle to do with ‘society’, the economy, or even the polity. The social context is itself intellectual, or at least the ‘social’ is defined by, and only by, existing vocabularies. ‘The ‘political life” that sets the agenda for theory is essentially a language game. Inthe end, to contex- Shad px THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 9 lize a ent isto situate it among other texts, among a range of {walt janes, dacourses and ideological paradigms at various levels of Pioeiliny from the dassis of political thought down to ephemeral orm ox political speeches. What emerges from Skinner's assault on farce nts othe att ary of tes et anther Y reectaal history, yet anther history of ideas ~ certainly more ead noes ohare than what went befor, but hardly sortie a ale tox “h catalogue of what is missing from Skinner's comprebensive history of political ideas from 1300 to 1600 reveals quite starkly the limits of re peomtets. Skinners dealing with a period masked by unajon sexi and economic developments, which loomed very large in the theory nd practice of European political thinkers and actors. Yet there is in fas Look no substansve consideravion of syviuture, he atinicacy and pessantey, land distribution and tenure, the social division of Tabour, social protest and conflict, population, urbanization, trade, commerce, manufacture, and the burgher class” It ig tne that the other major founding figure of the Cambridge School, J.G.A. Pocock, is, on the face of it, more interested in economic developments and what appear tobe mateial factors like che discovery” fin Peendles words of eapitaland the emergence nf commercial society" in eighteenth-century Britain. Yet his account of this ‘sudden and traumatic discovery’ 1s, its way, even more divorced from historical processes than Skinnerc acerunt af the state The critical mament for Pocock is the foundation of the Bank of England, which, he argues, trough about a complete transformation of propery, the transforma tion ofits stmecture and morality, with ‘spectaenar abruptnece’ in the ‘mid-1690s; and it was accompanied by suéden changes in the psychology of poles. But in this argument, the Bank of tngland, and indeed corametcial society. seem tn have nn histrry at all "They elderly ‘emerge full-grown, as if the transformations of property and social ‘slaiony in tbe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the formation OF English agrarian «apitaicm, ar the oystem associated with the development of capitalist property which Preceded the foundation ofthe national bank, had no Fearing on theit Consolidation in the cnmmercal capitalism ofthe eighteenth cont aling ly Englich 9 See Neal Wood, john Locke and Agrarian Capitalism (Berkeley ad Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984) p 1. 10 1G.A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History (Cambridge: Cambridge awersity Press, 1983), p 168, An elaboration of this argument en Pocock and ommercal sociey will have te anaic anther wl dew wae selva pesx0 CITIZENS TO LORDS Such a strikingly ahistorical account is possible only because, for Pocock perhaps even more than for Skinner, history has little to do with social processes, and historical transformations are manifest only 48 visible shifts in the languages of politics. Changes in discourse that represent thee are presented as its origin and cause. So, what purports to be the history of political thought, for both Pocock and Skinner, is curiously shistorical, not only in its failure to grapple with what on any reckoning were decisive historical devel- ‘opments in the relevant periods but also in its lack of process. Characteristically, history for the Cambridge School is a series of disconnected, very local and particular episodes, such as specific political controversies in specific times and places, which have no apparent relation to more inclusive social developments o& to any historical process, large or small." This emphasis on the local and particular does not, however, prechide consideration of larger spans of tine and space. The “adi- tions of discourse’ that are the stuff of the Cambridge School embrace long periods, sometimes whole centuries or even more. A tradition may cross national boundaties aid evens continents. Icaay bet pustiee ular literary genre fairly limited in time and geographic scope, like the ‘mirror-for-princes’ literature, which Skinner very effectively explores to analyze the work of Machiavelli; ot uotably in the case of John Pocock, it may be the discourse of ‘commercial society’ which char- acterized the cighteenth century, or the tradition of ‘civic humanism’, and a wider scope. Bue whatever its duration or spatial reach, the tradition of discourse plays a role in analyzing political theory hardly different from the role played by particular episodes (which are themselves an interplay of discourses), like the Engagement Controversy in which Skinner simates Hobbes, or the Exclusion Crisis which others have invoked in the analysis of Locke. in both cases, contexts are texts; and at neither end of the Cambridge historical spectrum. from the very local episode to the lang and wide spread tradition of discourse, do we see any sign of historical move ment, any sense of the dynamic connection between one historical moment and another or between the politieal episode and the social Imination and consolidation of a social transformation whiels had a longer 11 For a critica discusion of Skinner's ‘atomized and ‘epsodic™ aeatment of history. see Cary Nederman.*Quencin Skinner’ State: Historical Method and Traditions of Discourse’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No.2, June 1985, pp. haas2 THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY um at underhe it. In effec, long historical provesses ate thea a is money bell episodes : sels co eption of history, the Cambridge Schoo! has somethin Ins concn oy sore ‘powroderis’ tends Disco tory dissolved into contingeney Both respond co ‘grand Ms ard Shnot by criially examining their virtues and vices but by Faanding bstorical processes altogether The Social History of Political Theory 1 ‘social history of political theory’, which is the subject of this Wes uats from the premise thatthe great political thinkers ofthe pase wae passivnatcly engaged in the issues of their rime and place. "This was so even when they addressed these issues from an clevated philosophical vantage point, in conversation with otler philosophers fn viber times arnd places, and ever, oF especially, when they sought to translate their reflections into universal ard timeless principles. Often their engagements took the form of partisan adherence to a specific and wlentifiable political cause, ot even fairly transparent expressions of particular interests, the interests of a particular party or class. But their ideological commitments could also be expressed in a larger Vision of the good soviety and human ideals. Ar the same time, the sreat political thinkers ate not party hacks or propagandists Political theory is certainly an exercise in persuasion, but its tools are reasoned discourse and arguunentation, in @ genuine search for some kind of truth. Yer if the ‘preats? are different from lesser political thinkers and actors, they are no less human and no less steeped in history. When Plato explored the concept of justice in the Republic, or when he outlined the different levels of knowledge, he was certainly opening large philosophical questions and he was tions, no less than his answers, were (as I shall argue in a subseauent chapter) driven by his critical engagement with Athenéan democracy. To acknowledge the humanity and historic engagement of political thinkers is surely not to demean them or deny them their greatness Im any case, without subjecting ideas to eritical historical scruting, it 12 Fora discussion of the term social story of political thecre’ see Neal Wood, “The Susi History of Political Theory, Foitical Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, Agus 1978, Hiigtra om ” Agunm CITIZENS TO LORDS {5 impossible to assess their claims to universality or transcendent truth, The intention here is certainly to explore the ideas of the most important political thinkers; but these thinkers will always be treated as living and engaged human beings, immersed not only in the rich intellectual heritage of received ideas bequeathed by their philosophical predecessors, nor simply against the background of the available vocab- tlaries specific to their time and place, bat also in the context of the social and politieal processes that shaped their immediate world. ‘This social history of political theory, in its conception of historical ‘contexts, proceeds from certain fundamental premises, which belong to the wadition of ‘historical matesialisn?: huinan beings enter inte tclations with each other and with nature to guarantee their own survival and social reproduction. To understand the social practices and cultural products of any Gite and place, we Heed to know something about those conditions of survival and social reproduction, something. abour the specific ways in which people gain access to the material conditions of life, about how some people gain access tw the labour of others, about the relations between people who produce and those who appropriate what others produce, about the forms of property that emerge from these social relations, and about how these relations are expressed in political domination, as well as resistance and strueele. This is certainly not to say that a theorist’ ideas can be predicted or ‘read off" from his or her social position or ciass. The point is simply that the questions confronting any political thinker, however eternal and universal those questions may seem, are posed to them in specific historical forms. The Cambridge School agrees that, 1n order to understand the answers offered hy political thee something about the questions they are trying to answer and that different historical settings pose different sets of questions. But, tor the social history of political theory, these qnestinne are peed nat only by explicit political controversies, and not only at the level of Philosophy or high politics, but also by the soctal pressures and tensions thar shape human interactions cnteide the political arena and heynndl the world of texts. This approach differs from that of the Cambridge School both in the scope of what is regarded as a ‘context’ and in the effort to appre hend historical processes. Ideological episodes like the Engagement Controversy or the Exclusion Crisis may tell us something about thinker like Hobbes or Locke; but unless we explore how these thinkers situated themselves in the larger historical processes that were shaping their word, itis hard to see how we are to distinguish the great theorists from ephemeral publicists. 6, we must kien quip SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY B Long-term developments in socal relations, property forms and see etries: and itis undoubtedly true that political theory tends to Fen h ar moments like this, when history intnades most dramatically aor Gialouue among rexts or traditions of discourse. But a major so ike John Locke, while he was certainy responding to specific “indomentary political controversies, was raising larger fundamental anecrons about sexial relation’, property and the cate generated by iMger social transformations and structural tensions ~ in particular eulopments that we associate with the ‘rise of capitalism. Locke id nets needless to sa) know that he was obseéving she development Sf what we cal capitalism but he was dealing with problems posed by is characteristic transformations of property, cass relations and thestate, Io divorce hin (round hic wrk and its capacity to illuminate its own historical moment, lt alone the ‘human condition’ in genera. Tr different historical experiences yive rive to different sets uf probe lem, it follows that these divergences will also be observable in vari- tus “traditions of discourse’ Its not, for instance, enough to talk bout a Western or European historical experience, defined by x common cultueal and philosophical inheritance. We must also look ‘or differences among the various patterns of property relations and the various processes of state-formation that distinguished one European society from another and produced different patterns of theoretical interrogation, different sets of questions for political Uhinkers 0 address The diversity of “diseanrsee’ does nar simply express personal or ven national idiosyncrasies of intellectual style among political philosophers engaged in dialogue with one another across geographical and chronological henndarie. Ta the eviens thar plitieal philosophers are indeed reflecting not only epon philosophical traditions but upon mubiems set by political lie, their “discourses are diverse mn large Part because the paliical penhieme thry reanfronr ane diserce “The Boblem ofthe state for instance, has presented ill historically in diferent gues even to sch cose neighbour as the English and the Even the ‘perennial questions’ have appeared in various shapes. What appears as a salient issue will vary according to the nature of the larger sunial wuntentis to impoverish /ave discussed these differences at some length in The Pristine Culture of Capi- ‘alsm: A Historical Pasay on Old Regimes and Modern States (Leatoes Verso 1993).1 CITIZENS 10 LOKDS principal contenders, the competing social forces at work, the contflict- ing interests at stake. The configuration of problems arising from a struggle such as the one in early modern England betwern ‘improxing? landlords and commoners dependent on the preservation of common and waste land will differ from those at issue in France amiong peasants, scigncurs, and a tax hungry state. Even within the same historical or national configuration, what appears as a problem to the commoner or peasant will not necessarily appear so to the gentleman-tarmer, the seigneur, or the royal office-holder. We need not reduce the great political thinkers to ‘prize-fighters’ for this or that social interest in order co acknowledge the importance of identifying the particular constellation of problems that history has presented to them, ot to recognize that the “dialogue’ in which they are engaged is not simply a timeless debate with rootless philosophers but an engagement with living historical accots, Luth those who dominate and those who resist. “To say this is not to claim that political theorists from another time and place have nothing to say to our own. There is no inverse relation berween historical contextualization and ‘relevance’. On the const historical contextualization isan essential condition for learning from the ‘classics’, not simply because it allows a better understanding of a thinker’s meaning and intention, but also because itis in Hie content ‘of history thar theory emerges from the realm of pure abstraction and centers the world of human practice and social interaction. I here are, of course, commonalities of experience we share with wut oman, and there are innumerable practices learned by humanity over the centuries in which we engage as car ancestors did. Uhese common experiences mean thar much of what reat chinkers of the past have to say is readily accessible to us. Bat if the dassics of political theory are to yield fruitful lessons, it snot enough to acknowledge these commonalities of human and historical experience for ta mine the claesice fir certain ahstract winiversal principles. To historicize is to humanize, and to detach ideas from their own material and practical setting is to lose our pomts of human contact with them. “There is a way, all roo common, of studying the history of political theory which detaches it from the urgent human issues to which itis addressed. To think about the politics in political theory is, atthe very least, to consider and make judgments about whar ir would mean £© translate particular principles into actual social relationships and political arrangements. If one of the functions of political theory 18 fo sherpen our perceptions and conceptual instruments for thinking about politics in our own time and place, that purpose is defeated by emptying historical political theories of their own political meaning. predecesears jnst hy irre of bei THE SOLIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY ts for instance, I encountered an argument about rem USheory of natural slavery, which scomed to me to illustrate Aen Morrcomings of an ahistorical approach.!* We should not, che the ent went, ucat the theory of natural slavery as a comment on aepually actual social condition, the celation berween slaves and saaege as it existed in rhe ancient world, because to do so isto deprive sre any significance beyond the socio-economic circumstances of its ict ay ce naads we shoul recognize ie ay x plilosophical Rretaphor for the unwversal human condition in the abstract. Yet to “Tony that Aristotle was defending a ral social practice, the enslavement of real human beings, of fo suggest that we have more to learn about the human condition by refusing to confront his theory of slavery in it concrete historical meaning, seems 2 peculiar way of sensitizing us to the realities of social life and polities, or indeed the human condition, Some yeats ABs in uur own time oF any’ other. ‘There is also another way in which the contextual analysis of political few of MU. Finley Ancient Savery and Modern 14 Arle Seresbouses in cology, writes dsmissively of is approach asa ‘soca! historian, which, apparent car eel us fev unsurprising chings at dre peinpitan of writers om slavery fut cannot illuminate the deeper meaning of philosophical reflections sus as those * ‘riote, ‘Aristotle’ ellestions on the nature of slavery she wrtes, more us beyond patticular slave and @ particular master. Instead, te slave's subordination co the imsster refects our own subordination to katie. Slavery is nor only the degraded Fe inen of one witheur camel or hy or her akewe Tr iethe conn ofall humans ‘ature. The master and the lve & not tlaionship lite tothe lve ofthe anion and ender wold wih Ts aeferconal stats which Arneleexortsus vo understand so tt we ma understand sn in soca wn tr he a yn tation © the species ofa time and place, and sae i why though he notes the ‘Stores of A uy of Astana ate syd he ot inthe elevanc of encientslaers For hat we must rrntothe ancient cilosopher lite Teas Wal. 9)No, Nees p79) eure has Ane -zems perc to deny that he iyi the proces efeting on the very specific sth of slvery ave kn ta de Geckos Wh psp be poe ey that Arcot intends to si slavery By teatngit asa manfettion of hora shoals tbortinaion ro nature (though we may be acne, on the conte, nk har ths naturalization of slaves sens precy orsiaton. Bu here i 27 3. sorathing rather walling abow the view that s‘Blosophea erp eof Arto, which detaches i cnn of avery Fo the concrete el ies r aster-sLye lation in trial tne and apace, telly x tore about “the LADS of anes fined Arde vows about than dove me al history’, which eas the philosophers reflections a6 pei, recctons O0 "ens nota a metaphor hut ata all oosoncree historia reais sf The mactr apd slave16 CITIZENS TO LORDS theory can illuminate our own historieal moment. If we abstract a political theory from its historical context, we in effece assimilate it to our own. Understanding a theory historically allows us to look at ‘our own historical condition from a eritieal distance, from the vantage point of other times and other ideas. It also allows us to observe how certain assumptions, which we may now accept uncritically, came into being and how they were challenged in their formative years. Reading political theory in this way, we may be less tempted to take for granted the dominant ideas and assumptions of our own time and place. Thisbenefit may nut besv readily available ew contextual approaches in which historical processes are replaced by disconnected episodes and traditions of discourse. The Cambridge mode of contextualization canewages us tu believe that the old political chinkers have litte to say in our own time and place. It invites us to think that there is nothing to learn from them, because their historical experiences have suo apparent connection to Our own. To discover what there i to learn from the history of political theory requires us ta place ourselves on the continuum of history, where we are joined to our predecessors not uiily by the continuities we share bur by the processes of change that intervene between us. bringing us from there to here ‘The intention of this stud, then, is not only to illuminate some classic texts and the conditions in which they were created but also to explain by example a distinctive appenach to contextual interpretation Tes subject matter will be not only texts, nor discursive paradigms, but the social relations that made them possible and posed the particular questions addressed by political thearists. This kind of contextual reading also requires us to do something more than follow the line of descent from one political thinker to the next. It invites us to explore haw certain fundamental cacial relations ext dhe para «creativity, not only in political theory but in other modes of discourse that form part of the historical setting and the cultural climate within which political : Roman law or Christian theology: While 1 try to strike a balance between contextual analysis and interpretation of the major texte, some readere may think that this way of proceeding places too much emphasis on grand structural themes at the expense of a more exhaustive textual reading. But the approach being proposed in this book: is best understood not as if any way excluding or slighting close textual analysis bur, on the Contrary as a way Of shedding light on texts, which others can put to the test by more minute and detailed reading. THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 7 ‘The Origin of Political Theory scholars have offered various explanations for the emergence of political theory in ancient Greece. There will be more in the next chapter about the specific historical conditions that produced, especially in Athens, the kind of confidence m human agency that s'a necessary condition Uf political theory: In this chapter, we shall confine ourselves to the general conditions that marked the Greeks out from other ancient civilizations and set the agenda for political theory The most vital factor undoubtedly was che development, perhaps by the late eighth century BC, of the unique Greek state, the polis, which sometimes evolved into self-governing democracies, as in Athens, {rum the carly fifth to the late fourth century. This type of state differed shaeply from the large imperial states that characterized other ‘high’ civilizations, and from states that preceded the polis in Greece, the Minoan and Myeenean kingdoms. In place of an clakorarc burcauctatic apparatus, the polis was characterized by a faidly simple stare admin- istration (if we can even call it a ‘state’ at all) and a self-governing civic community, in which the principal political tclations were not between rulers and subjects but among, citizens ~ whether the citizen body was more inclusive, as én Athenian democracy, or less 50, a8 in ‘Sparta or the city states of Crete, Politics, in Ue seuse we have cone 10 understand the word, implying contestation and debate among diverse interests, replaced rule or administration as the principal object of political dicourse, These factors were, uf vourse, more prouuinent in democracies, and Athens in particular, than in the oligarchic polis. 43s also significane that by the end of the fifth century, Greece was becoming a literate culture, in unprecedented ways and to an unprece- vel deze. Although we should not overestimate its extent. a kind { Popular literacy, especially in the democracy, replaced what some ed ee cn eee ee ee ee fe litcsaxy in which reading and writing were {Pectslized skills practised only oF largely, by professionals or scribes happened in Greece, and especially in Athens, has been described S the democratization of writing, of poPtlar rule, which required widespread and searching discussion ret osing social and political issues, and which provided new oppor. ons for political leadership and influence, when coupled with te ichinn Prosperity, broughe an increasing demand for schooling and ith a & An economically vital, democratic and relatively free culture and antici means of written expression and exact argumentation, Noursble rane audience for such discourse, created an atmosphere ‘othe bicth and early thriving of political theory, a powerfulx8 cIrIzeNs TO LORDS and ingenious mode of self-examination and reflection that continues to the presenc. But we need to look more closely at the polis. and especially the democracy, to understand why this new mode of political thinking 100k the form that it did, and why it raised certain kinds of questions that had not been raised before, which would thereafter set the agenda for the long tradition of Western political theory. There will be more in the next chapter about Athenian society and politics, as the specific context in which the Greek classics were written. For oir purposes here, a few general points need to be highlighted about the conditions 1m which political theory originated. The polis represented not only a distinctive political form but a tunique organization of social relations. The state in other high ‘avilizations typically embodied a relation between rulers and subjects that was at the same rime a relation berween appropriators and ptoducers. The Chinese philosopher, Mencius, once wrote that ‘Those ‘who are ruled produce food; those who rule are fed. That this is right is universally recognized everywhere under Heaven.’ This principle nicely sums up the essence of the relation between rulers and producers which characterized the most advanced ancient civilizations. In these ancient states, there was a sharp demarcation between production and politics, in the sense that direct producers had no political role, as rulers or even as citizens. The state was organized 10 control subject labous, and it was above all through the state that some people appropriated the labour of others or its products. Office in the state was likely to be the primary means of acquiring great wealth. Even where private property in land vias faily well developed, state office was likely to be the source of large property, while small property generally carried with it obligations to the state in the form of tax, throughout its long imperial history that large property and great wealth were associated with office, and the imperial state did everything toimpede the autonomous development of powerful propertied classes. ‘The ancient ‘bureaucratic” state, then, constituted a ruling body superimposed upon and appropriating, from subject comuunities of direct producers, above all peasants. Although such a form had existed in Greece, both there and in Rome a new form of political organization emerged which combined landlords and peasants in one civic and military community. While others. notably the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, may have lived in city-states in some ways comparable to the Greek polis or the Roman Republic, the very idea of a civie JHE SOCIAL HISTORY OF POLITICA THEORY 9 snunity and ctizenshiy as sin from the princi of rule by com sll cetiperimposed state apparatus, derive from the Greck bay -a of a peasant-citizen was even further removed from the experience of uther ancient states. The role of slivery in Greece and Reune will be discussed in subsequent chapters; but, for the moment, itisimportant to acknossledge the distinctive political role of producing iteses peasants and craftsmen, and their unique relation to the state. fe the Greck polis and the Roman Republic, appropriators and producers in the citizen body confronted one another directly as Midividnals and as classes, as landlords and peasants, ot primtatily as fulers and subjects. Private property developed more autonomously find completely, separating itself more thoroughly from the state. A new and distinctive dynamic of property and class relations was difer~ catiated ont from the traditional relations of (appropriating) state and (producing) subjects. {he special characteristics of these states are reflected in the classics of ancient political thought. When Plato, for example. attacked the democratic polis of Athens, he did so by opposing to it a state-form that departed radically from precisely those features most unique and specific ta the Greek polis and which hore a striking resemblance in principle to certain non-Greek states. In the Republic, Plato proposes 2 community of rulers superimposed upon a ruled community of Deodhicers, primarily peasants, a state in which producers are individ ually “free? and in possession of property, not dependent on wealthier Prwvate proprietors; but, although the rulers own no private property Producers are collectively subject to. the ruling. comm compelled to transfer surplus labour to their non-produeing, masters. Poliseal and military functions belong exclusively to the ruling clas, according tn she radisinnal separatian af mikvary and farming lace, which Plato and Aristotle both admired. In other words, those who are ‘isd proguce tod, and those who rule are fed. Plato no douibt drew inspiration from the C: . these Principles ~ notably Sparta and the city-states of Crete; but itis likely that the model he had more specifically in mind was Egypt — of, at ease, Egypt as the Greeks, sometimes inaccurately, understood it. ag thet classical writers defended the supremacy of the dominant lasses i less radical and more specifically Greco-Roman ways. In partic- tla, the doctrine of the ‘minced constitution’ ~ which appeate in Plato's Cauts 204 figures prominently in the writings of Aristotle, Polybius, and Packie, Zests @ uniquely Greek and Roman reality and the special lems faced by a dominane class of private proprietors in a state and y Le exarae20 eran that incorporates rich and poor, appropriators and producers, landlonds and peasants, into a single civic and suilitary comnuunity. The idea of the mixed constitution proceeded from the Greco-Roman classification of constitutions — in particular, the distinction ‘among government by the many, the few, or only one: democracy, oligarchy, monarchy. A constitution could be ‘mixed’ in the sense that it adopted certain clements of each. More particularly, rich and poor could be respectively represented by “oligarchic’ and ‘democratic’ elements; and the predom- inance of the rich could be achieved nor by drawing a dear and rigid division between 2 ruling apparatus and subject producers, or between rmuhtary and tarmung classes, but by tilting the constitutional balance towards oligarchic elements. In both theory and practice, then, a specific dynamic of property and lass relations, distinct trom the relations between rulers and subjects, swas woven directly into the fabric of Greek and Roman politics. These relations generated a distinctive array of practical problems and theo- retical issues, especially in the democratic polis. There were, of course, distinetive problems of a society like Athens, chat lacked an unequivocally dominant ruling stratum whose economic power and political supremacy were coextensive and inseparable, a society where economic and political hierarchies did not coincide and political relations were less between rulers and subjects than amiong citizens. ‘These political relations were played out in assemblies and juries, in constant debate, which demanded new rhetorical skills and modes of argumentation. Nothing could be taken for granteds and, not surpris- ingly, this was a highly litigious society, in which political discourse derived much of its method and substance from legal disputation, with all its predilection for hairsplitting, controversy. Greek political theorists were self-conscious about the uniqueness order is apenifi fons uf state, and they inevitably caplored th of the polis and what distinguished it from others. They raised questions about the origin and purpose of the state. Having effectively invented st new idcininy ce civic idemity of citizensbipy hey pored yu about the meaning. of citizenship, who should enjoy political rights and whether any division between rulers and ruled existed by nature. ‘They confronted the tension between the levelling identity of citizenship and the hierarchical principles of noble birth or wealth, Questions about law and the rule of law; about the difference between political organization based on violence or coe based on deliberation or persuasion; about human nature and its suitability (or otherwise) for political life ~all of these questions were thrown up by the everyday realities of life in the polis 1 aud civic community rie SOCIAY HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY ar inthe absence of aruling ass whose ethical standards were accepted no asstime the eternity and inviolablity of traditional norms. mesure i a lg arcing old proverbs or reiting epics of aristocrat hero-kings but ePSGnsracting theoretical aepuments to meer theoretical challenges Gystons arose abou che origin of moral and politcal principles and oeetmakes them binding. From the same political realities emerged he humanistic principle that ‘man is the measure of all things’, with ii che new questions that this principle entailed. So, for instance, the Sophists (Greek philosophers and teachers ssho will be discussed in the next chapte) asked whether moral and politcal principles exist ature or merely Ly custo ~ 4 question that could be a 2 tone wave. some congenial to democracy, others in support of Gligarchy; and when Plato expressed his opposition to democracy, he could not rely on invokinn, the gos o1 time-honoured custom but seas obliged co make his case by means of philosophic reason, to construct a definition of justice and the good life that seemed to rule ‘out democracy. Political Theory in History: An Overview Born in the polis. this new mode of political thought would survive the polis and continue to set the thearctical agenda in later centuries, when very dilerene forts of stace prevailed, This longevity hay not been simply a matter of tenacious intellectual legacies. The Western tradition of political theory has developed on the foundations estab- lished in ancient Greece because certain issues bave resained at the ‘entre of European political life. In varying forms. the autonomy of Private property its relative independence from the state, and the fon tenes hee fc! of social power have continued to shape the political azenda. On the one hand. appropriating classes have ne ded the state to maintain order, conditions for appropriation and ottel over producing classes. On the other hand, they have found i ae @ burdensome nuisance and a competiter for surplus labour. bani ® wary eye on the stare, the dominant appropriating classes ee always had cw curn their attention to their relations with subor- tampa ptodlucing, classes. Indeed, their need for the state has been mea ectermined by those difficult relations. n particular, throughout matt of Western hiscory, peasants fed, clothed, and housed the lordly rity by means of surplus labour extracted by payment of rents,22 CITIZENS TO LORDS fees, or tributes. Yet, though the aristocratic state depended on peasants and though lords were always alive to rhe threat of resistance, the politically voiceless classes play little overt role in the classics of Western political theory. Their silent presence tends to be visible only in the great thenrerical efforts dewoted to justifying social and political hier archies. the relation between appropriating and producing classes was to change fundamentally with the advent of capitaliem, but the history ‘of Western political theory continued to be in large part the history of tensions between property and state, appropriators and producers. In general, the Western tradition of political chcory has becn ‘history from above’, essentially reflection on the existing state and the need for its preservation or change written from the perspective of a member or client of the ruling classes. Yee it should be obvious that this history from above’ cannot be understood without relating it to what can be learned about the ‘history from below’. The complex three-way relation betwicen the state, propertied classes and prunlusess, perhaps more anything else, sets the Western political tradition apart from others. There is nothing unique to the West, of course, about socities in which dominant groups apptopriate what others produce. But there is something distinctive about the ways in which the tensions betiseen them have shaped political life and theory in the West. This may be precisely because the relations bewween appropriators ané producers have never, since classical antiquity, been synonymous with the relation between rulers and subjects. To be sure, the peasant-citizen would not survive the Rovian Euipire, and many centuries would pass before anything comparable to the ancient Athenian idea of democratic Citizenship would re-emerge in Europe. Feudal and early modern Europe would, in its own way, even approximate the old division between rulers and producers. as labouring classes were exclided from active political rights and the power to appropriate was typically associated wich the possession of ‘extra-economic” power, poitticai, yudiciai or military. But even then. the relation herween tuilere and produirere was never unambiguous, because appropriating classes confronted theit abouring compatriots not, in the first instance, as a collective power omwanized in the state but in a more ditectly personal relarion as individual proprietors, in rivalry with other proprietors and even with the state, ‘The auronomy of property and the contradictory relations between ruling class and state meant that propertied classes in the West always had to fight on two fronts. While they would have happily subscribed to Menciuss principle abour those who rule and those who feed ther, 1 HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY ess THe soc take for granted such a neat division between rulers: they could never Tatse there was a much clearer division than existed ‘and producers b Trwhere hetwcen property and state, he foundations of Western political theory established Fie is eaten aa ve aneiipeen many changes and additions to its theoretical agenda, in ccping with changing historical conditions, which will be explored tei following chapeers. The Romans, perhaps because their arieto- Cove repli didnot confront challenge these of the Athenian Cnocracy. did not produce a tradition of political theory as fruitful eee een OA Jnnovations, especially the Roman law, which would have major imph tions for the development of political theory. The empire also gave Fhe te Chrishanity, which becane the imperial religion, with all ies euleural consequences. Tes particularly significant thar the Romans began to delineate a sharp distinction between public and private, even, petTapsy between state and society. Ahene all, the opposition between property and state as two distinct foci of power, which has been a constant theme through- out the history of Western political theory, was for the first tine Formally acknowledged hy the Romans in their distinction between imperium and dominivm, power conceived as the right to command and power in the form of ownership. This did nor preclude the view expressed already hy Cicero in On Duties (De Offictis) — that the purpose of the state was to protect private property or the conviction that the state came into being. for that reason. On the contrary the partnership of state and private property, which wentld continue to be ventral theme of Western political theory, presupposes the separation, snd che tensions, berween them. ‘Thetension herwern these ran farmenf penser, which was intensified in theory and practice as republic gave way to empire, would, as we wll se, piay a farge part in the tall of the Koman kmpire. With the the of feudalism, that rencinn wae rrenloed an the side nf demininon, 8 the stare was virtually dissolved into individual property. In contrast to the ancient division between rulers and producers, in which the state was the dominant inst iment of appropriation, the feudal seare ‘eurcely had an autonomous existence apart from the hierarchical chain 4 individual, if conditional, property and personal lordship. Instead of @ centralized public authority, the feudal stare war a network of Darcellized sovereignties’, governed by a complex hierarchy of social “ations and competing jurisdictions, in the hands not only of lores and kings, but als of various autonomous corporations, to say nothing,