Enmity and Feuding in Classical Athens by Andrew T. Alwine (review)

Alwine cannot imagine an ancient Greek asking, "Can't we all just get along?" He does argue, however, that, while Athens was a feuding culture, it was also the first democracy for which there is evidence of a tendency "for egalitarian ideology to modify the violent feuding impulse." The competitive and litigious nature of ancient Greek (especially Athenian) society has long been recognized, but the underlying emotional dynamics have been less clear. Models of conflict themselves diverge. Was Athens a feuding society, one in which casual violence was permitted and in which it was perfectly acceptable to continue a feud openly in the law courts? Or was it considered better in Athens to showcase one's restraint (while portraying one's opponent as arrogant and vengeful)? With careful, compelling consideration of the evidence, Alwine seeks to establish a new paradigm altogether. On the one hand, enmity was a crucial dynamic in establishing social standing; on the other hand, the Athenians employed a variety of institutions to channel—and control—these passions and their implications.

Alwine is less convincing when he draws parallels with modern expressions of and responses to personal enmity: it is hard to agree with him that "cities are too big and social networking too complex for the opinions of neighbors, friends and family, and the community at large, especially their evaluation of one's character, to exert the necessary pressure." And have politicians really moved away, as he argues, from a rhetoric of personal enmity? He is more compelling when he discusses the profound effects of the polis-focused nexus of social values in Athens, which worked as a set of civic protections guaranteed to individuals and made it possible for a citizen of Athens to participate in the politeia without constraint.