What is politics?

[BeerDrinkingBurke]

What it says on the tin. What is politics? How are we to understand this element of human life? How can we define it? What are its extensions? Let me start with some thoughts of my own here. A basic definition of politics is very broad. If we head on over to Wikipedia, we get this definition:

Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

Following this definition, human societies are, we might say, inherently political. This is because all societies have some form of power relations, and all societies have some manner by which decisions are reached, which is reflective of those power relations. From here we get the refrain: "Everything is political." Which means, everything we do can be connected in some way to the structures of power that exist between people, and the decisions that we make on the basis of those structures, or about those structures.

Going forward, I will refer to this definition as the basic definition. It appears to say something meaningful, but it is also very broad. Here I will make one important claim: as with many broad definitions, I think this basic definition can actually work to obscure other alternative, more specific definitions of politics and the political. The Czech philosopher Jan Patočka (1907-1977) has once such interesting alternative definition that I want to explore here. It concerns the connection between politics, myth, and philosophy. In his book Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, Patočka argues that politics and philosophy have a unitary beginning. He understands both as arising out of a shaking of accepted meaning. What he means is something like this: It is only once we start to question our myths, and with it the established social order, that we become aware that we do not truly know. What does this mean?

For Patočka, in the mythological world, answers always come before the questions. You can certainly ask a question. But it is a question posed to an established understanding. You can imagine an Ancient Egyptian or Archaic Greek child asking their parents why it rains, or what thunder is. There is an answer that can readily be given to such questions. In such a world, we certainly still have politics in the broad sense. Wherever there is a society, there is power, after all. But we do not have an awareness of the political dimension of human life as something distinct from our mythological framework. To extend on his point using my own language, the Emperor of Ancient China or the Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt was an intermediary between the powers of gods or heaven and the world of everyday human affairs. They were not rulers in the modern day sense. They were responsible for upholding order, or lawfulness, that is imbued with a kind of cosmological significance. For example, the Nile River needs to flood regularly, so that the surrounding land receives the rich silt that benefits agriculture. The Pharaoh was responsible for helping this to occur through ritual. Meanwhile, in China, too such flooding might become the thing that needs to be prevented, and the Emperor had his part to play here through performing the correct rituals. A mythological people are therefore at home in the world. That is to say, the world makes sense for them, through their myths.
 
But in Ancient Greece, we see a kind of rupture with this mythological understanding, where a new space opens up. A space where questions can come before the answers. Patočka thinks of politics and philosophy as having a unitary beginning, because in the sense that he understands them, both activities are really only possible once this rupture has occurred. A space must first exist, within which questions can genuinely be asked, a space that refuses to be covered over once more by any new answer, that might assume the stature of myth, or absolute authority. This space is characterized by the mode of wonder. Hence we have the figure of Socrates in the Theaetetus speak of wisdom beginning in wonder (thaumazein). Patočka understands such wonder as a "wonder in the face of the world", a wonder about the fact that there even is a world to begin with, and a wonder about our own position in relation to it, a position defined by fundamental ignorance. Let's put it another way: Only once we realize that we simply do not know, can we start to ask genuine questions. The questions we ask about the nature of things includes the nature of human affairs. What is justice? What is morality? What laws ought we to have? And why? No certain answer is available that everybody agrees upon, or that is sanctioned by an absolute central authority. Rather, different people offer different answers, and they attempt to justify those answers by giving reasons.

To boil this down a bit: Patočka offers us a way of understanding the difference between "activities associated with making decisions" (the basic definition of politics), and people actually gathering together and having arguments about such decisions. The former definition is so broad that it can encompass the actions of an ancient Theocratic Empire, as well as modern party politics. But the latter definition is focused specifically on the emergence of this awareness that we now have, that we ourselves can (and must) decide how we ought to live. This understanding of politics, for Patočka at least, first appears for a time in Ancient Greece.

Some closing thoughts: I really appreciate how this narrow definition cannot be easily subsumed under some other specific (theoretical) interpretation of human beings as having a certain nature. We have a bunch of such interpretations that have emerged in modern times, and they have their associated interpretations of politics. For example, maybe we think of human society as a kind of organism, and politics as a process of mediation with the 'surrounding environment' (like classical pragmatism). Or maybe we think of human beings as 'inherently selfish', and therefore much of politics (understood as the mere organization of the social body) ought to be left up to the invisible hand of the market. Etc. In an age of scientism, naturalism, and (dare I say it) very partisan politics, we need to continually reinvigorate this "space for genuine questions." I also appreciate the connection this definition has to collective responsibility in the so-called modern age. We are the kind of being that does not know. We might think this, or that. But ultimately, in the domain of politics, as with philosophy, all we have are our arguments. This situation calls on us to be responsible for ourselves and our beliefs. We can abrogate our responsibility, and refuse to engage with politics. We can try to retreat from it into modern myths, or unthinking tribalism, but that responsibility is there, nonetheless.

[Jubal]

So I think with my historian's hat on, I instictively question Patočka on factual grounds: that is, I think that the delineation between mythological-theocratic and rational-political society is probably not something one can justify, both in that societies like ancient Egypt were a lot more 'political' than one might imagine, and societies like ancient Greece perhaps rather less so. Even in a society like ancient Egypt, pharaonic authority was probably sacral only in certain defined ways and spaces, and there was a political elite perfectly capable of questioning the basis on which things were done. Take for example Akhenaten's famous flirtation with a more solar-monotheistic religion - effecting those changes required at least the temporary acquiescence of a social elite around him, and just as importantly for our discussion here a major re-evaluation of answers to questions about the proper sacral role of the political community.

The same is largely true in a Greek polis! People could and did take on sacral functions within the state (and these were core functions of the polis just as much as war and conquest were), the evaluation of these could be a political act, and politics was largely an elite pursuit albeit with the power of those elites more firmly constituted than in an imperial or royal system. This is part of the trouble with the idea of ancient politics as being about how we ought to live - who is the we? Even in 'democratic' Athens, the we who could decide how we ought to live was a decided minority of the population. So I think this definition splitting off the mythological from reason-driven worlds is a neat bit of thinking but I'm not sure it lands in practice and I'm sceptical that you can use it to label any whole actual societies.

I guess if I wanted to redesign this I'd probably account for it as two modes of political thought: political thought as inquiry, and political thought as affirmation of belief, and I'd suggest that both are important to most societies. Indeed, inquiry cannot stand on its own as a political method, because we can't derive certain basic principles except by reference to axioms: I think that hurting people is bad, that people should have a lot of freedom to choose their path in life, and that all human life has value. I don't really think those things by reference to rational argument, they're my underlying beliefs. In a sense, that's my mythological/affirmation-centric mode of thought, and I think we need to be aware of that mode to think well about politics because we need to understand how those affirmations are underpinning the logical workings that sit on top of them. I agree entirely with you that the larger current problem is one more about affirmation taking over more and more of the political space without room for inquiry, but neither way round is ideal.

[BeerDrinkingBurke]

So I think with my historian's hat on, I instictively question Patočka on factual grounds: that is, I think that the delineation between mythological-theocratic and rational-political society is probably not something one can justify, both in that societies like ancient Egypt were a lot more 'political' than one might imagine, and societies like ancient Greece perhaps rather less so. Even in a society like ancient Egypt, pharaonic authority was probably sacral only in certain defined ways and spaces, and there was a political elite perfectly capable of questioning the basis on which things were done. Take for example Akhenaten's famous flirtation with a more solar-monotheistic religion - effecting those changes required at least the temporary acquiescence of a social elite around him, and just as importantly for our discussion here a major re-evaluation of answers to questions about the proper sacral role of the political community.

This is quite fascinating! Thank you for sharing. Patočka is very much coming at this from a perspective similar to Husserl's in his Crisis, which sees the heritage of Europe as having a special significance for the world. Can this kind of claim still be sustained in light of historical research conducted since? From what you are saying it does look tricky. I'd be quite interested in learning more about Akhenaten! Could you recommend any reading?

[BeerDrinkingBurke]

...inquiry cannot stand on its own as a political method, because we can't derive certain basic principles except by reference to axioms: I think that hurting people is bad, that people should have a lot of freedom to choose their path in life, and that all human life has value. I don't really think those things by reference to rational argument, they're my underlying beliefs. In a sense, that's my mythological/affirmation-centric mode of thought, and I think we need to be aware of that mode to think well about politics because we need to understand how those affirmations are underpinning the logical workings that sit on top of them. I agree entirely with you that the larger current problem is one more about affirmation taking over more and more of the political space without room for inquiry, but neither way round is ideal.

Oh that is very juicy and just the kind of thing I was hoping to learn / think more about. I'd definitely love it if you could revisit this subject more for us in a post I want to initiate on the origins of progressive vs. conservative politics. I've written it up already, but I want to refine it a little more before posting.

[dubsartur]

I might have energy for more of a reply later, but I wonder what Jan Patočka would have made of texts like the Dialogue of Pessimism or the Amarna Letter where "the city" come to the local strongman and say "you have to make peace with your enemies and abandon the King of Egypt.  If you kill us, who will live in your city?"

[BeerDrinkingBurke]

These look interesting too. Thanks for sharing!

EDIT: I am soliciting some comments from my old professor, who is a Patocka scholar. We shall see what she has to say. ;-)

[dubsartur]

I also think you might enjoy this book review http://abandonedfootnotes.blogspot.com/2013/11/aztec-political-thought.html

Sorry that I don't have energy for more coherent thoughts right now.

[Jubal]

This is quite fascinating! Thank you for sharing. Patočka is very much coming at this from a perspective similar to Husserl's in his Crisis, which sees the heritage of Europe as having a special significance for the world. Can this kind of claim still be sustained in light of historical research conducted since? From what you are saying it does look tricky. I'd be quite interested in learning more about Akhenaten! Could you recommend any reading?

I don't think I'm enough of an Egyptologist - I'm largely thinking through this from the vaguer sort of knowledge gleaned from broadly hanging around real Egyptologists. But I think in general it's true that our understandings of sacral-kingship have gotten a lot more limited, and our understandings of early democracies and republics have gotten a lot more sacral, over the last two or three decades. I'll try and think more about whether there's any good reading I have in my backlogs of files once I'm reunited with said stacks of files next week.

Oh that is very juicy and just the kind of thing I was hoping to learn / think more about. I'd definitely love it if you could revisit this subject more for us in a post I want to initiate on the origins of progressive vs. conservative politics. I've written it up already, but I want to refine it a little more before posting.

Would be happy to! It's the kind of stuff I keep thinking I should write more of on my politicksy blog, but I'm not sure anyone really reads that anyway.