It being a midterms year, Moonshine Ink sought to create a political education column, speaking with academics on the state of politics in the country. In this edition of the Politics Brief, Moonshine spoke with Teaching Assistant Professor Owen Fite, Ph.D., from the University of Nevada, Reno’s political science department. Answers were lightly edited for style and clarity.
You teach a class on political philosophy, so I’m wondering if you can define democracy and tell me about how it has evolved since its creation? Why didn’t the founding fathers go with a direct Athenian democracy?
To give the general synopsis of what Athenian democracy was, it wasn’t monolithic, it wasn’t static. It changed over different years in which it existed. But the most radical take … that I think is worth juxtaposing from today is a democracy in which you had 6,000 citizens who showed up to the Pnyx — the assembly. It’s this hilltop in Athens. And the first 6,000 citizens that showed up there got to be essentially congress members for the day.
Those citizens would be voting yea or nay on the various proposals that were submitted by [a] council of 500. This was still restricted to Athenians, even if there were other city-states and areas that were under Athenian rule. This was still a very exclusive form of citizenship that also did not include women or children or slaves. But these people also were paid.
As a way to make this more accessible even to the poor, you could get paid essentially a day’s wage to show up and do your citizenry duties. And so you had a form of citizenship that allowed for such participation and allowed for real engagement, whether it’s because you were picked by lottery to be one of these more deliberative council members in this smaller body of 500, or you always having this right to show up early to this assembly with 5,999 other folks and vote yea or nay on these various proposals. I don’t think I need to explain to you how different that is from democracy today.
Aristotle gives you a theory as to three noble forms of government — what are pure, virtuous forms of government: benevolent kingship, aristocracy, and polity, or what also might be translated to a constitutional polity of sorts.
The perverted forms, or the forms of government that end up taking shape if the noble ones end up being corrupted, are: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Democracy is seen as mob rule, rule of incompetence, rule of those who are subject to material needs. In other words, people are selfishly going into these assemblies looking for what they can get. If they don’t have their needs met, they’re going to be even more desperate and selfish instead of deliberating and thinking of a collective communal good.
And it isn’t until we get to John Locke and what we would call the introduction of liberal democracy that we get kind of this 180, where we get essentially the English Civil Wars, and we get this re-understanding that government is based on consent, individual’s agreement to enter into a social contract and accept legitimate authority.
[The founding fathers] had a lot of liberal ideas to pull from, they draw from Lockean philosophy, and so they have the basis of a liberal democratic government, but one that is still supposed to be based on rationalism, that is still supposed to exclude women, those who are not educated enough, like children, those who are supposed to only be property owning. In other words, still this idea that those who can’t provide for themselves are going to corrupt a public body, seeking their own selfish good if they don’t have their own material sustenance met.
And what one could clearly argue as real skepticism of the everyday citizen, the fact that the Senate was not able to be elected until we get to the 1900s shows that the founding fathers didn’t want everyday people in charge of affairs. The fact that the electoral college existed meant another layer of insulation in which individual people could not express their concerns. By just keeping it in the House of Representatives, it allowed some sort of representation based off citizens, which is still a very exclusive circle.
Not everyone could be a citizen … that would be specifically capped by a Senate. It’d be capped to really make sure that all these warnings made by political philosophers over the last thousand years [about] a tyranny of the masses, a tyranny of the uneducated, would never really take shape.
As politics becomes wrapped up in every facet of life, what would you say to somebody who says that they’re not political? How does this tie into Aristotle’s idea of the zoon politikon?
Zoon politikon translates to political animal.
And this is an assumption made by Aristotle that people are political creatures. In other words, politics is not something we should avoid. Politics is the very essence of being human.
The fact that humans have ideas of what is good and bad, what’s better and worse, what is righteous, what is sincere, what is emotion, these are all very human things. And all of this has to do with politics. In order to understand this you have to have a more capacious definition instead of an institutional definition of politics just being Congress or voting.
But politics at its origins is the practice of compromise, of agreeing. Well, that’s what it’s like to be a person. The only way one could avoid politics would be living out on an island by themselves with no interaction with anyone else.
But even that is still the consequence of politics. For example, [if] some different treaties or different governments agreed not to populate this one island, [then] even if someone avoids all politics, the very absence of politics … requires politics elsewhere. And so that’s a different answer, though, to how someone who tells me they’re not political, how I’d respond to them.
I would do a long Socratic kind of back and forth if I had all the time in the world and I was invested in really getting this through. I would ask, ‘What does it mean to not be political?’ I’d throw it on its head. And if someone said, ‘Oh, it’s just I like my job and I like watching my TV.’ I’d ask, ‘Well, how do you have your job? What are the economic forces at play? What are the facts of insurance, the subsidies, the workplace protections, the fact that you have a home, the zoning, the roads that get you from here to there, the fact that you have TV, that you have internet connection here and there, that everything that leads to you being a part of another’s world, that’s political.’
It is interesting because I feel like some of the people I’ve talked to think it’s pointless. They think that they don’t have influence, or maybe they think that there’s no point in voting in the presidential election because they think that the only potential power that they have is within local elections.
What I would call a meaningful distinction of what you brought up is the difference between having agency and influence versus control and masterdom. Yeah, people in the U.S. right now do not have control over their politics.
They do not have a masterdom over politics unless they are one of those few exceptions of a political party elite or Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos-type billionaires. That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t have influence. If I were to have a conversation with individuals, I would probably take it as local, scaled down as possible to think of what influence have you had on friends, on family, on the community, and I would interrogate them or challenge them to say, how is that apolitical? You convincing a friend to watch a certain show over another, going to this event versus another, joining this club, spending their time doing this and that.
Whether they’re subtle or not, they have interconnections with ideas of what is better, what is worse, what are ways that we want to associate, we want to cohabitate, we want to live together, what institutions we want to make, whether they’re formal or informal.
What I problematize about the definition that you cited is that it’s really restricted by an institutionalist type of thinking that, yes, if you only work with institutions and you expect institutions to completely reflect what you want, it’s going to feel like you have no agency, but that’s only one avenue of politics.
The most radical changes over history, the biggest political change happens outside of formal institutions. It creates new institutions over time. You as an individual are not going to do that. You don’t have that control or masterdom, but that’s where you don’t get these big critical junctures until it actually takes up across a large group, a large mass of people.
We go back to the heart of it, which is politics only exists with others. You as an individual are not going to change everything in politics by yourself. It’s all part of a collective action problem, a collective effort.
