Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn

Abstract

Greg Anderson is an Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University, where he has taught since 2005. His teaching and research cover ancient Greece, critical theory, and historical thought. In his first book, The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508–490 b.c. (University of Michigan Press, 2003), and a number of other pieces, he questions the use of modern categories such as “state,” “tyranny,” and “democracy” to characterize phenomena in ancient Greek experience. He is currently working on two book projects: a monograph, The Realness of Things Past: Ancient Greece and Ontological History, and a volume of essays on states in history titled State Formations: Histories and Cultures of Statehood, which he is co-editing with John Brooke and Julia Strauss. The Decree of Eukrates (337/6 b.c.). This decree authorizes Athenians to assassinate anyone who attempts to establish a tyranny in the polis of Athens and prescribes punishments for any would-be collaborators. The sculpted relief shows Demos (“the People of the Athenians”) being crowned by a personified Demokratia. As the image suggests, the Athenians conceptualized Demos as a unitary corporate person, not as an aggregate of autonomous individual persons. In contemporary thought and practice, this corporate self was a kind of primordial superorganism, one that existed prior to and apart from the particular flesh-and-blood Athenians who happened to embody it at any given time. As “the rule of Demos,” Athenian demokratia was thus not just institutionally different from modern individualist democracies. It was premised upon entirely different ontological foundations. Athens, Agora Museum I 6524. American School of Classical at Athens: Agora Excavations. Photo: C. Mauzy. Our discipline's grand historicist project, its commitment to producing a kind of cumulative biography of our species, imposes strict limits on the kinds of stories we can tell about the past. Most immediately, our histories must locate all of humanity's diverse lifeworlds within the bounds of a single universal “real world” of time, space, and experience. To do this, they must render experiences in all those past lifeworlds duly commensurable and mutually intelligible. And to do this, our histories must use certain commonly accepted models and categories, techniques and methods. The fundamental problem here is that all of these tools of our practice presuppose a knowledge of experience that is far from universal, as postcolonial theorists and historians such as Dipesh Chakrabarty have so well observed. In effect, these devices require us to “translate” the experiences of all past lifeworlds into the experiences of just one lifeworld, namely a post-Enlightenment “Europe,” the world of our own secular, capitalist modernity. In so doing, they actively limit our ability to represent the past's many non-secular, non-capitalist, non-modern “ways of being human.”1 To be sure, the discipline's cultural turn of the last thirty has us to the of non-modern our of past and the have us to the of our with the of and cultural history has us to that our non-modern in its it a knowledge of one that for a primordial and a and the one to represent that it is a historicist that us to the experiences of To the a by the a of and and in they by own on the of the as as one attempts to this to tell a in the by our discipline's and one the ability to the here by The one can do within the limits of our is to to the and of cultural to it as the of his who can be the the to a history of the one that to a the of the as it was by the the of to an of to a of it past. It that past into the past of namely our that the of past all those of the lifeworlds that by the the postcolonial of has for our as of historians have to as the of historical knowledge us to non-modern experiences by all into modern the of in is the To have on and a has to Our be to ontological which to be we can our of and non-modern we to the of To us all those that we have in we a that can of non-modern on its own ontological as a world in its own and to ontological experience. past of its own particular its own of the of its own particular of and and and and and so our historicist categories, and do not us to past experiences all the to the ontological they require us to non-modern lifeworlds as all within one and the within a single universal by of and a where and individualist The is a practice that the of non-modern past the to the of own experience. the of and that the of this historicist practice far they a these have and by of thought in a of from and critical to and on the of these we can in turn to an one that in an entirely not as an as a as an by the of thought and this of require us to an ontological turn in our It us to of past in its own our non-modern was in be an of was at the And we to this we duly histories that at and As a lifeworld, Athens can as a for the us to in an ontological turn in historical of at and a of ontological In to in and upon the world as a the of any given historical must that world as a must a knowledge of is of the and of which that world must a of the phenomena that the and of phenomena those we and and and and and the and of And they of in the all and upon the of such a and In other past and for and to its own particular its own of it to be the is to have in not just To this we have to the world of our own capitalist which on at ontological and is The and other upon which modern being is all presuppose a a world in which is to those phenomena that with our of and As our world has for it as and It is thus a world entirely of all the and and and and the other that have and all other historical for It is a world where is a world of and and all those from to the to and from the It is a world that has all those that and and It is a world this it of that modern is as it the of at it as of the and of as of and not as in own It thus all and the that to a of experience a that is from the of This of a of well to those who have to of as a of the of it have at all in non-modern where was in all of where have the who it of is a that in our modern a world that is secular, a world where have from into that they have the and the to of And this us to the commitment of our modern which is its who of the of within a of a of own have about upon the of his capitalist is upon an of The of experience is thus into two mutually an of knowledge and and to be from a of from a of and And with this of have world from not all non-modern have from of being by the of the and the by the of and from who the that in as from who it for that and in and all the modern ontological that be to non-modern be those we and other persons. we to the and last of the ontological that capitalist namely our our that all This ontological have the of where the the of the was “the of of the and thus the in his own person, as a of his own such that his all of the It have for that in the world of where and as the and of a single primordial And the of a individual be and the of who all as as of all the and of that have in the modern capitalist it as the primordial of the that all with a to a and upon our to and thus to of of and so as not as of our of who we as And we that being to individual the other we that individual in the first who our us to at any given the of a this of and any be to and the to it is by a since it to rule to other who rule for must be by such as and “the of on the of to on to a of must be from the of by of and other such And in our modern world it entirely that not the of that we the of our be from any In our world it to the to all of for the tools of historicist practice to the ontological of past experience. they us to modern upon all non-modern To the we can to Athens, a non-modern lifeworld, and the Athenian of that has us of the Athenians to be the of it the Athenians not of to tell was and was was in the stories they about and in all and it was far and our was premised upon just a and the two in the of Attica, not just The Athenians with and other polis was with “the and not just of and in the world of and space, who all of and the in Athens not for the of the in Athens was the of of and And and to and from and to and the Athenians to in on just so with and a of in Athens was not a of to It was all about those to and the of the polis as a The of Athenian being was the of In the of the was not of It was a a that was at and and To since the Athenians to be an who since the was to be a a of to by they as as a with they an Attica, they given to the first such as and who from As the first on to of and these first to to as and to Athenians in all the to And just as as “the of so the Athenians as as the of and by and from of all of Attica, of duly the of the they not do so as a aggregate of and they in the world as a corporate person, a they “the People of the As the of the polis this unitary Demos was a kind of primordial that in since the of those first It thus existed prior to and apart from the particular who happened to and embody it at any given in this Demos was not a of It was about a the of a a polis which an individual have and about the primordial of Greek polis well by The polis is by prior to the and the since the is of prior to the for the is be in the that we of a for the be that The that the polis is a of and prior to the individual is that the is not and he is a in to the he who is to in has he is for must be a a he is of the to modern the of the Athenian not these for the of from the of Attica, which was conceptualized as a for not as the of a Athenian as by a with the that they being within Athenian not one an Athenian and one the to in the one an Athenian was being into the of Demos an Athenian who and of the of the As for the of those to the of the Athenians that the and to and Athenian was in a its as its and in the He duly with his other the for and the of the as a as who one to into not such in the polis was to the of Demos by and within its the polis and in Athens, the Athenians and the it be to of as a Most immediately, one was a a of the and an a of a particular In our modern it is as they all two different at the time, with its own of And of is to Athenians just for as as of a universal the world as of a particular as of the polis and the that and in the first and polis they the that they an Athenian different from all other Greek and In the world of the Athenians was premised upon a just a of and the in this was to the of for and the of was to the of for and The was to and these in such a that the be and that the be and that they a the of the as a And they This of is they It to do with “democracy” as we the It was Demos to do to its own in its particular where upon with in the of from other In demokratia was the of and in and upon the world to the of the This be in it be in the in at on the Athenians to as one in the unitary of the polis so they in as and other as as of the of the As these Athenian and with for a of any it is demokratia in it is not demokratia to to Greek historians of that the Athenians to own all those just we we to use models and categories, tools that actively this non-modern to our own modern ontological tools first of to a modern of ontological us to that the of Athens, the of all to be in a of the the and the they us to that the Athenian and other a of “state,” an that was from a Athenian that these two mutually categories do not to phenomena in ancient experience. it is Athenian was entirely by by of Athenian we that the polis of Athens must have kind of of and the that us to these two as mutually in the first the of a from have entirely to the our us to that such as and must have an it to us that the Athenians not have such a was a world where as It that was an where to the of where individual was its own where by for for ancient to the of a modern an not that was not in It that its must have in In we the of Athens, our the of non-modern experience into modern such as and we these to be of the in have to the to not it is the tools of our practice that us to in the first by modern ontological upon the ancient As for the own the non-modern that our historicist tools have us this to a of to a of the world that we have all the and other phenomena that all and at the time, the of this ancient have in history to the of with all the other non-modern of the Athenian by us to Athenian of its in this our historicist tools of require us to As cultural as Athenian can be from the world they It that the Athenians premised upon the that the of not all of to the of the upon which Our that we can of this we it as an as the Athenians just all by It thus us to with from the of which is And it us to all and in a we which it us to as a of an to the of history that was on And the of our us to the of the polis to the Athenians from from they a who actively and and they we to a an of and that existed to be by they a of and we the primordial that our historicist us to a and a we the history of polis as they its and as they the of world its As for the to this by and all the other and in this ancient these must be and the of they to be at us to Athenian of its its and its our have us the of the by that we Demos the of the the individualist of our models and categories the of a they us to a corporate a of to an aggregate of individual it into a of And of these entirely at in the world that our categories have for a world of The of our historicist to render the Athenian of is thus a and individualist a that we the Athenian is to a of “the with and “the with this is as a kind of from which all in Athens duly And the Athenians as we this “democracy” and that it was premised upon the as our own In other the of Athens was not a of that was on its with the and of Attica, as the Athenians It a that was by This historicist of the Athenian is for at fundamental on a is about a that non-modern being to our modern ontological As the Athenian well our practice is the in that it to It is a thought In its to render past commensurable and mutually it the of all past experience modern ontological It its historical from all the of of and they to be It individualist in a world of our one that and to they have and such a The of all this is a kind of an of one that past as of our In other our of authorizes us to in a kind of a historicist that the of our capitalist upon who can for To a of this kind of is in any of modern historical our practice at a for our of the to the of who and they at the the for this practice be that it at that And this us to the problem with the of Athens, for the one at the of our and the it to on its own historicist it is an that to be with and the Athenians world to post-Enlightenment they have of and from we of in Athens at that Athenians the of they the that a of not of the to all of and within the they such the Athenians have the of into from such as and they have accepted the of as many as in at any given And we to of the that the Athenians in the a that the of and of from other Greek to of these and other such as as of the to the that in any at do the number and of these us to any such was at the Athens so so at with the of its is a problem of The ontological for this Athens is that the Athenians any of our our of and our and our and our our our any of the other phenomena that by a And in the of such it that to our as a To this, one that it is the Athenians of the of such phenomena in that in the is that we can these we must actively from the of a that these phenomena they and in Our modern devices tell us And in the the by our historicist is and all it on of and This us to the problem with namely its To it is far from where any of our modern ontological it from our own experience of since that is by the modern Our as to the of its own in our a capitalist that is with phenomena such as and a which all presuppose and the of that can this from our modern since that the of our entirely for that and and one that experience into and has its own ontological all for that can from any to since such a has and within a modern one that is with that in the that thought from one the of to the thought of those who do not ontological for the one a number of many who have all the universal of of is in the have that for all the of at the where phenomena such as and do not as for as and as in not a as a they is a effect, an by the an and own of thus of this of we thought and And one that this of has from the to the by of by the of and a of contemporary theorists have the ontological of from to with many of the of the the upon which all our one they have at and in that this particular of is a historical a of knowledge and the of modern capitalist have the of other modern and to be of thought and And postcolonial theorists have to the of categories and from and the to theorists have the of modern knowledge just as theorists of and the have to the of this historians and of have the of the by And have on the of any knowledge It be to of all these as of our as of the our modern experience as from they us with a critical of our world from a kind of they not that is world the they the we about the of us to it as that is and so that one can where a and an as all thus in the primordial and and the and the that of and in the first And they do this by us and the of a world be from the of the of those for that world is those to the that the two can in be In so doing, the of the us to past the ontological of our world and the and of its of they us to this on a kind of us to the in which as with of to such as and that to be us to that is a not a And they us to our knowledge is and into the of and actively where the ontological in this be and thus to the that it to be we to this it to our historicist practice is so is the of an mutually its of knowledge and its particular one of one such world with the knowledge of we use modern and categories to “translate” a non-modern lifeworld, a of the into a we in our of and with our was at the time. that it at the ontological is to we in an entirely in the image of our a kind of where the we from non-modern experience with our own of to phenomena such as and and that to the time, the us to that a one that non-modern to the of own be a and of in to of lifeworld, we to our own of and and those our to be the of of ontological as that existed of the of by we to into the of that to they with to the of that To be sure, we to this ontological turn in our practice, we be producing a modern knowledge of the past. be these histories us to and represent the of experience. this turn to ontological history we of the of in and an ontological history of Athens have for the we It not the Athenian into entirely and of by its own and all it have to the polis as the Athenians it as a single of experience by two entirely the and the And it have to the of the of the polis in Athenian to one from to the these that the Athenians to be to use and of that they to the with they And the polis in this we its of as a it us to the we about the of in of the of to a of “the we have to that a of this was to be by different in Athens the and they all of and from and to and from and to and And we to the in Athens of all this we have to that the to the of and in was not in the by the Athenians in the and other such It the they at a of and the of into the of that the to and the of the polis as a this turn to ontological history require us to of any in The in a world where the of all and It in an where the was a and a kind of one that actively It in a where the for where the of by where as a rule for the Athenians have the of an such as and they have these to be all for to in the was not a a that be by of was the primordial upon which the of all Athenians since was a of the the and the of the the Athenian on its own in this us to for that the in the polis those the and the and the for such as and to the to the of the the time, this us to the many by to Athenian own to into Athenian not just the the of an to the of within that with the for and that Athenian to as in the first And it us to the of the as a to upon the by the of As the of the polis of these to a for its to use and to and the of Demos on a And with duly such was for Demos to its In this of the of and to the of the polis us to any use of the modern and in our of the Athenian as these we to that Athenian demokratia an the corporate self of Demos and its the of the and the of its it was for in Athens that and all of from of and to and to Demos which by the Athenians to any of with a a of In Athens, it have to from the upon which they all and which they all and the the polis and its to that the of a particular a and was as a to the of the polis as a And of it to it to the Athenians that all in the and be by not by was a in Athens a and the of its it was thus not a in the of experience any of and It was a within the of a and an a that that Athenian to be in different a particular of a particular and a of the Demos we to that Athenian demokratia to do with individualist and and to do with corporate by a of our with other modern categories, and And we such categories and to of the Athenian on its own we can that all those of of our own Athenian not of the polis to of our own individualist of in Demos in Athens have to any As the of Attica, as of in and as and of as and who and the of the Athenians as to the of Demos as that to that be not was the and demokratia as the Athenians the This the in of who the and Demos and of in the to Athenians in the to as and and for the and and to and the of the In other demokratia was entirely those who the to such as the of to the of Demos with Athens and its demokratia by these not by and Athenian demokratia was in a in corporate not an in the of as and to In an where for not for the of the was the of a in have any And as we have Athens have many of the and cultural to The was to the from the of other the of which is the Athenians in the of the the Athenian was the of this to lifeworlds at a certain Most an ontological turn require us to our with its of and all its of a unitary experience in a single It the that has the the and other to this practice of the ontological from which different have the past's many of and of and so And this is the that we have to for histories that at and it to be well this of the for our modern that the ontological of experience to the of lifeworlds that have