Social relations on stage: Witnesses in classical Athens

Modern states have constructed a multiplicity of issue-specific regimes to facilitate collective action. The majority of these institutions are specific instances of the deeper institutional practices that structure modern international society, notably the fundamental institutions of contractual international law and multilateralism. Two observations can be made about fundamental institutions. First, they are “generic” structural elements of international societies. That is, their practice transcends changes in the balance of power and the configuration of interests, even if their density and efficacy vary. The modern practices of contractual international law and multilateralism intensified after 1945, but postwar developments built on institutional principles that were first endorsed by states during the nineteenth century and structured international relations long before the advent of American hegemony. Second, fundamental institutions differ from one society of states to another. While the governance of modern international society rests on the institutions of contractual international law and multilateralism, no such institutions evolved in ancient Greece. Instead, the city-states developed a sophisticated and successful system of third-party arbitration to facilitate ordered interstate relations. This institution, which operated in the absence of a body of codified interstate law, is best characterized as “authoritative trilateralism.”

show abstract

“…65. See Humphreys 1983;Humphreys 1985;Humphreys 1988;Maio 1983;Garner 1987;Ober 1989;and Osborne 1985. 66.…”

Section: The Ancient Greek Constitutional Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions

Reus-Smit

1997

Int Org

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the legal speeches of the Athenian orator Lysias (4th c. BC) show cases in which the partial reconstruction of a plausible narrative-a story considered sufficiently eiko¯s (probable) or at least eikoteros (more probable) than the other part's accountbecomes the basis of the defence or prosecution. Taking in account the large and heterogeneous composition of the juries in 4th c. BC Athens-legal cases were conducted before 200 or more dikastes or jury members (Humphreys 2007)-the narratives used and reconstructed, that should allegedly match with the audience own experiences (their fairly overlapping scripts), had to recur to widely assumed social patterns.…”

Section: The Script As a Cognitive Structure Involved In Enthymematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory

Olmos

Vega

2011

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent times, there have been different attempts to make an interesting use of the concept of script (as inherited from the fields of psychology and cognitive sciences) within argumentation theory. Although, in many cases, what we find under this label are computerized routines mainly used in e-learning collaborative proceses involving argumentation, either as an educational means or an educational goal, there are also other studies in which the concept of script plays a more theoretical role as the kind of commonly human cognitive structure that could account for the way in which argumentation might develop in ordinary language and ordinary settings. We aim at exploring these latter possibilities, differentiating between the global ascription of the script concept to argumentation practices as procedural and regulated actions from the somewhat more suggestive association between socially shared scripts (expected narratives, plausible sequences, customary experiences, etc.) and the way some enthymemes work from an interactive, rhetorical perspective. The concept of script could help us understand some more procedural than propositional aspects of the cognitive sets shared by arguer and audience and account for the communicative success of apparently defective argumentation.

show abstract

“…A widow with only a young son to defend her must have been especially vulnerable. The youth of her son meant he would have little power and almost no influence in a society where networks counted (Humphreys 1985;Rhodes 1986). A fortiori this kind of network was out of the question for his widowed mother, who depended on her family and kin to protect her.…”

Section: Widows and Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Athenian Widow and her Kin

Hunter

1989

Journal of Family History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence in Attic lawsuits, viewed in a cross-cultural perspective, reveals that the legal restrictions on women made it difficult for widows to achieve the kind of independence and power enjoyed by their counterparts in early modern Europe. Athenian widowsfunctioned mainly within the structure of the family. Peculiar to their position was the fact that they remained members of their natal family. Hence, though legally without rights of inheritance, widows were assured of the protection of a father or a brother and of a place in their family of origin. Sons carried on in the tradition of natal kin in supporting and protecting widowed mothers. The latter, mature widows, often exercised power within the family, where they were respected as figures of authority.

show abstract

Social relations on stage: Witnesses in classical Athens

Cited by 107 publications

References 34 publications

The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions

The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions

The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory

The Athenian Widow and her Kin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About