Justice is possible only when power is in balance. Otherwise the strong exact what they want and the weak simply suffer.
The Melian Dialogue as Rorschach test? For well over a century, great powers and their ideologues have taken the Athenians’ claims to be (1) obviously Thucydides’ own beliefs and (2) obviously true. For most of the same period, those who find such ‘realism’ distasteful or unacceptable have observed that the episode is followed by the Sicilian Expedition, and so clearly Thucydides intends us to recognise the dangers of such hubris and amorality. Right and Realistic, or Wrong and Wrepulsive? Does anyone take the Melian arguments seriously? Their role in such readings is to be victims, either as naive fools to demonstrate the pointlessness of resisting one’s superiors, or helpless innocents to expose the moral bankruptcy of those supposed superiors.
A Plague On Both Their Houses? If you are instinctively on the side of the weak, then actually listening to the Melian arguments is a bit embarrassing. It’s a relief to be reminded that the Melians in the Dialogue are not representative of the whole people – that this is a leadership clique, refusing to allow the whole citizen body to deliberate on whether to embark on a hopeless military enterprise, let alone the women and children who will suffer the most (or does Thucydides actually mean us to despise the ordinary men who, given a choice, might prefer to abandon honour in favour of personal safety?). The Athenian generals have a stronger claim to be representing the views of the majority of Athenians – which is perhaps intended to reflect less well on the mindset of democracy, that the majority can happily vote to empower people who will massacre those who stand in the way of their ambitions. If we take the dialogue form seriously, it’s not at all clear that either side has good arguments. The point is rather that they are recognisable, familiar, bad arguments, that need to be confronted.
A Perfect Circle… If the world is like this, then it’s because of the mindset and assumptions of the men making the decisions. If this is how they see things, it’s because their perceptions have been shaped by experience and reported experience of engaging with the world as it is. If the world was like that, then…
…With A Ratchet. If justice is possible only between those with power to demand it, rather than being dictated to by others, then the only reasonable response is to try to be strong, or at least appear to be strong, or at least find a new means of making others weak. Which is the logic of endless escalation. No one aspires to be merely equal, for fear that the parameters might change, or justice might not turn out to one’s advantage; better to be strong and have the luxury of dictating terms.
Fractals. It is not just, as the Athenians observe elsewhere, that anyone else in their position would behave in exactly the same way (does this imply acceptance that, if they were the Spartans or the Melians, the same would also hold true?). It’s the fact that everyone else is in their position, in a different context. The Melian leadership are the strong in their communities, expecting submission and obedience on the grounds that this is natural and reasonable; the ordinary Melian citizen is the strong in his household. And the strong are conscious of being weak compared to others, and/or having been weak and vulnerable in the past.
There Must Be Some Way Out Of Here..? The Athenian commanders have the power, even if less than they might think; they could in theory show restraint and mercy – but would get no credit for it from their people. The Melian leadership could give up, and lose their power and probably their lives – or just hope that outside powers will intervene on their side, re-igniting broader conflicts. And even if one or both recognise their dilemma, they can’t admit it.
Why History Matters. Having an inaccurate, self-serving, mythologised idea of the past leads to bad decisions. This does not mean that having a clear, accurate, neutral idea of the past will lead to good decisions; it’s more like starting with a clean slate, seeing the present situation as it is rather than as one might wish or fear it to be. But this is also to recognise how far most of the people with actual power to make decisions do have an inaccurate, self-serving, mythologised view of the past. This might be the strongest evidence yet that Thucydides wrote for a tiny elite; for everyone else, the only reasonable conclusion from reading his work is that you too are weak and therefore vulnerable, and unless you can make yourself strong all you have is hope, danger’s comforter.
Why A Dialogue? There are always two sides, with different perspectives and assumptions. We should see something of ourselves in each, and feel disturbed or repulsed by both, and identify wholly with neither – and so recognise how much of us may be found in our supposed other, and how much of them in us. This doesn’t mean that justice is always evenly divided, but without some recognition of our own complicity and the other’s humanity, there is no way forward.
Is This What Thucydides Really Meant? I think that’s the least of our concerns right now.
Leave a comment