
Like modern democracies, ancient Greek democracy had an anger problem - drjohnson
https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/martha-nussbaum-jefferson-lecture
======
gt_
Hmmm... the Greek tragedy 'The Bacchae' addresses the fate of a society which
suppresses "anger" as she suggests. Suspiciously, it was not mentioned in
Nussbaum's presentation. In the play, Thebes suppresses the less civil
realities of earthly life until they punch back. Dionysus and the Furies
unleash madness on Thebes as a result.

In this presentation, the furies are being distilled into little more than
representations of anger which is quite simplistic and raises many contextual
issues. In short, they are better contextually understood as representing
earthly Dionysian vengeance, maybe we can say 'ugly truth' although I am
uncomfortable with the tone this description has. The furies are 'chthonic' or
'of the earth.' They are associated with death and the more primordial makings
of life itself.

Interpretations of Greek mythology abound and on the surface, this seems like
one of the less thoughtful ones I have come across. I am noting it, however,
and am curious how she defends these angles throughout her works. Please share
if anyone has an explanation. I am less than anxious to buy her books.

~~~
KGIII
If you google her name and add PDF to the search terms, you come up with stuff
like this:

[https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t...](https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-
fragility-of-goodness-luck-and-ethics-in-greek-tragedy-and-philosophy.pdf)

I have no idea if that book is meant to be free or not. I also haven't read
it. Like you, I was a bit curious about her writings and how she supported her
views. So, I hit up Google and that's an example of one of the results. There
are quite a few hits, often at .edu domains.

Alas, it will be a little bit before I have time to read it.

------
amai
This is a straw man article. We don't have an anger problem, neither had the
ancient greek one. We have a problem with the distribution of wealth and this
is where the anger comes from.

Start taxing the rich a bit more, stop wasting the tax payers money on wars
that cannot be won and the anger will go away. Anger always has a cause.
Listen and find the cause for the anger. Then fix the cause, but don't point
the finger at anger.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Oh, but we _do_ have an anger problem these days. People are not angry because
they carefully examined their situation and decided it's caused by deep wealth
inequality. People are angry because a) things are bad, b) media feeds them
outrage-inducing bullshit, and c) they don't even verify any of that, but get
angry.

That is, people's anger is often completely disconnected from reality.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I think your (a) is due to wealth inequality. Even if people don’t know those
two words, it’s not hard to see that $10 to $20 per hour jobs will get you
nowhere. I think people do see the increasingly winner take all nature of
business, that moving up to th next class is impossible if you aren’t able to
achieve select professional routes. And worst of all, it’s so obvious that
their children will be so far behind in terms of networking, signaling, and
resources that their chances are also diminished.

~~~
PeterisP
We would have a wealth inequality problem if "things are bad, caused by wealth
inequality" resulted in people fighting to make things better by fighting for
things that would reduce wealth inequality. This is not what we're seeing.

We _do_ have an anger problem because "things are bad, possibly caused by
wealth inequality" has resulted in people fighting to make things better by
angrily striking at random directions, a lot of those actually _increasing_
future wealth inequality - so if we want to solve the actual causes (for
example, wealth inequality) we'd have to tackle the anger problem first.

------
amai
Unlike modern democracies, the ancient democracy was a real democracy, because
they understood politics much better than us:

"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as
oligarchic when they are filled by election. (Aristotle)"

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)

~~~
woodruffw
That quote is easy to misinterpret because of our modern (rightful!) bias
towards democracy.

Along with tyranny, Aristotle considered democracy and oligarchy the three
_bad_ forms of government. He wrote his _Politics_ with both the Athenian
tyrants and Socrates' death (at the hand of the democracy) in mind.

~~~
will_brown
Typical you are downvoted for accuracy because it doesn't conform to populist
belief.

What most people don't know is Aristotle's teacher, Socrates, was a military
leader/hero and firmly believed the best form of government would be an
authoritarian council of philosophers. Similarly contrary to popular belief
Niccolò Machiavelli - despite what people know about his work most famous work
The Prince - firmly believed democracy was the _best_ form of government.

Obviously these truths run counterintuitive to what people _think_.

~~~
wdr1
Aristotle was taught by Plato, not Socrates. Socrates died when Aristotle was
still relatively young.

It was Plato who believed the ideal ruler would be a philosopher-king, but he
also explicitly stated it was not a realistic option because the same
philosopher-king could also be a tyrant.

------
drawkbox
Anger can be a driving force, a possible dangerous one but one that definitely
creates _motivation_.

I think that mostly, progression/invention to make things better came out of
real needs that were frustrating. Frustration creates movement, movement
creates change, revenge is a means of propulsion. Only a democracy can diffuse
this built up revenge that allows action, so in that essence anger is healthy
in a democracy.

In the end it can be frustrating on a team when the whole of it moves in the
wrong direction, people want enough power to make sure things go right, if
that is challenged, frustration/anger set in. If you can manage productive
things out of frustration/anger, you will win at this game.

David Simon stated that he is driven by a revenge type of motivation.

 _In a talk that Simon gave to a live audience in April, 2007 at the Creative
Alliance 's storytelling series, Simon disclosed that he had started writing
for revenge against John Carroll and Bill Marimow, the two most senior editors
at The Baltimore Sun when Simon was a reporter at the paper. Simon said he had
watched Carroll and Marimow "single-handedly destroy" the newspaper and that
he spent over ten years trying to get back at them._

 _Anything I 've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything
I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been
accomplished because I was going to show people that they were fucked up,
wrong, and that I was the fucking center of the universe and the sooner they
got hip to that, the happier they would all be._

The ego has its reasons for being part of our evolution, it is a driving force
that make you believe you can be better. That is probably closely related to
anger, frustration, revenge and the most important part, productively using
that fuel to burn your fire of propulsion to success.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C_characteristics.2C_and_motivation)

------
adrianratnapala
I never thought I would say this: but is this thing available as video or
audio? It seems to be the transcript of a lecture, and I would like to listen
to it as I clean my house.

I found this thing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI),
but that is an interview in the wake of the lecture, not the lecture itself.

~~~
def-
[https://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture-
video](https://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture-video)

~~~
octaveguin
That lecture has a 20 minute introduction.

A long meandering of thanking and praising various funding organizations and
people. A great example of what's wrong with modern academia.

~~~
maxxxxx
They should just put up sponsor banners like sports do. I almost reflexively
fast forward 10 minutes now when I watch a lecture because it seems they
always feel that need to give a long intro speech.

~~~
KGIII
They could adorn their jackets with sponsor logos and change hats frequently.
It'd be like automobile racing!

It might actually get more attention that way. The scientist could show up and
do doughnuts in the parking lot, squirt champagne on the crowd, and get a
trophy. I'd watch the hell out of that.

------
briantakita
One of the reasons why the American Founders implemented a Republic. James
Madison writes his analysis in Federalist Paper #10.

"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge
the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of
citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country,
and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it
to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well
happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people,
will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people
themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be
inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister
designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the
suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question
resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the
election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in
favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may
be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard
against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be
limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a
multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in
proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater
in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be
not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a
greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number
of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult
for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which
elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more
free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive
merit and the most diffusive and established characters."

[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm](http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm)

~~~
akvadrako
Interesting and so naive. It's almost like the whole thing was an experiment
designed by politicians.

------
baxtr
Quite interesting read. However, I would refrain from drawing general
conclusions about democracy out of this. I guess, we as a species tend to have
anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in.

~~~
Razengan
_> I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which
societal form we live in._

I'm not so sure about that. I think it has a lot to do with how we are raised
and what we are taught when we come into this world, and it can be changed.

Recently I read some very nice fiction called the Green Sky Trilogy [0] (that
has given rise to a video game which was _far_ ahead of its time [1]), which
depicts a pacifist society where there is a taboo on "unjoyful" behavior and
activities, like anger and violence, but not on inherently "joyful" activities
like sexual relations.

It really raised something I have always found very odd about our own world.

Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress
activities that bring pleasure and _life_ , but promote violence and death?

It's just bizarre.

Consider the infamous censorship of a TV show where they showed plenty of gore
but not naked corpses, so they covered their buttocks with even more blood.
[2]

Like we are supposed to be OK with that, but not nudity.

You have people beating each other up and show weapons and guns in children's
cartoons, but shy away from showing anyone kissing someone.

So if we can condition ourselves to accept violence and strife – the causing
of pain and death – things that are downright _contrary_ to our existence,
then we can condition ourselves to reject them as well.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_\(video_game\))

[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship](https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship)

~~~
scythe
I don't find such predictions at all utopian, and I'm surprised this thread of
argument has persisted in culture so long.

Sex _is_ associated with pain and suffering, and that's why taboos exist.
Whether it's unwanted children, unwanted contact, diseases, or unfulfillable
desires, there's plenty of downside to sexual behavior. Violence is easier to
understand correctly than sex: violence is always bad unless it's necessary,
while the conditions which make sex good or bad are more complicated, and
thus, less comprehensible to children. Every four-year-old knows you shouldn't
actually drop anvils on people. Inappropriateness is an ingredient of
slapstick comedy which is (partially) why characters in children's shows do
bad things to each other. Note that Pepe le Pew nonetheless appears in
children's shows; his attempts at romance are also obviously wrong and thus
funny.

On the other hand I do notice a positive correlation between people thinking
the solutions to social problems are easy and people becoming angry about
politics. This makes sense because it's natural to feel aggrieved when someone
fails to solve an easy problem. But in reality the solutions to social
problems are not so easy.

~~~
Razengan
I edited the post a little to clarify the point I was trying to go for:

If culture and upbringing can condition us to reject and feel awkward about
our most basic instincts, then culture and upbringing can make us reject
violence or causing grief to each other as well.

By the way, the books I mentioned weren't "utopian predictions", in fact they
have a dark side to them. For example, in that world even children are
encouraged to take calming narcotics when they feel upset or agitated, which
stifles them in different ways. Highly recommended reading in any case.

------
power
It's worthwhile to remember that Athenian democracy was direct and not
representative like nowadays. Individuals voted on bills rather than electing
officials to vote in their place. Plato claimed this form of government led to
bills passed by popularity contest and tyranny of the majority which sounds
pretty modern to me.

Still, I'd prefer democracy with all its problems to the Republic he proposed.

------
QAPereo
To be fair, it was passion in general they thought was base and animalistic,
not just anger.

------
whipoodle
Do we have an anger problem? Or are we right to be angry at our shitty, do-
nothing "leaders" who fail to actually make things better or pay attention to
actual problems? If the idea is that anger often doesn't actually resolve
things in a helpful manner, then sure, it doesn't. But let's be careful to
separate proximate cause from ultimate.

Also, the underlying assumption that anyone who is angry is always the one
with the problem is troubling to me. I see it often, it's not good.

------
pnathan
Fascinating.

