The E-Seminar
About the E-Seminar

2009-2010
Conference ESeminar
Introduction
Session 1
Session 1 Responses
Session 2
Session 2 Responses
Session 3
Session 3 Responses

The Seminar Archive
1998 Index
     February
     March
     April
     May
1999 Index
     February
     March
     April
     May
2000 Index
     February
     March
     May
2001 Index
    February
    April
    May
2002 Index
     February
     March
     May
2003 Index
     February
     March
     April
2004 Index
     February
     March
     April
2005 Index
     February
     March
     April
     May
2006 Index
     February
     March
     April
2007/8 Index
     November
     December
     January
     March
     May

Copyright Notice

Eseminar Classics in the Modern World - a Democratic Turn? - Session 1

The Debate and Its Terms
Barbara Elisabeth Lawatsch-Melton, Emory University, Atlanta, USA

As we begin our e-seminar in preparation for the conference on ‘A Democratic Turn in Classical Receptions', it seems useful to consider some of the meanings of the term ‘Democratic', to clarify the aims we are pursuing, and to survey pertinent methodologies.

Different societies and communities appear to agree (or do they not?) on several core democratic values, namely equal access to power, equality before the law, and legal protection of liberties. However, as I was thinking about my own paper and panel proposals, the differences in emphasis became increasingly apparent. Democratic trends manifest themselves in a host of different guises. Thus classical receptions might be examined in relation to issues such as civil liberties, racial and ethnic equality, broadening of access to power, resistance to oppression, human rights, social justice, economic fairness, abolition of privileges, the separation of powers, accountability of public officials…. Terms such as ‘popular', ‘mass', ‘authentic' have also been brought up, and one might add ‘liberal' as applied to 19th century political cultures. I expect other discussants would want to comment on, complement or refine this list. A primary goal of my own panel, and I hope of the conference in general, would be to determine how classical receptions highlight distinct emphases in and aspects of democratic movements, trends, communities, and cultures.

One terminological problem I have encountered is the fact that classical receptions were sometimes not used to promote democratic values in a modern sense, but helped in the evolution of a democratic society. This is certainly true in the United States, where the particular understanding of democracy has been shaped in close connection to classical receptions in the 18th century. On the other hand, classical receptions were sometimes connected to democratic or liberal trends that did not prevail, at least not immediately. These considerations raise other issues that I hope the conference will explore: What role did classical receptions play as different notions of democracy evolved over time? And how did earlier appropriations facilitate and/or hinder the later, more ‘democratic turn' in classical receptions? I also think it important to investigate how classical receptions could serve to promote democratic as well as undemocratic values and practices. Related to this is the question of what would constitute an argument against the idea of a ‘democratic turn'.

Like the term ‘Democratic', the notion of ‘Classical Receptions' embraces a range of themes and approaches. Scholars have developed methodologies for a number of relevant areas, such as models for integrating classical receptions with broader historical and intellectual trends. But several method-related issues have not been resolved. Some of them pertain to the terminological problems mentioned above, I think, and include developing frameworks for longitudinal studies of classical receptions. Methodologies in the field continue to evolve, and contributors to this discussion and the conference should feel free to explore them in an attempt to survey and further develop approaches available to scholars of classical receptions.

****

 Public Experience and Popular Classics
Amanda Wrigley, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

The upcoming conference presents us with an important and exciting opportunity to clarify and perhaps even expand the scope and direction of Classical Reception Studies (CRS). The theme ‘Public Experience and Popular Classics' emerges from collaboration with Robert Davis (CUNY) and Robert Crowe (Bristol) on a conference panel proposal. Here is the rationale for the panel, with further commentary.

This theme seeks to encourage research which discusses the evidence for public engagement with popular (and often mass) forms of ‘classical receptions'. The particular ‘democratic turn' with which this theme is concerned is, therefore, that which pertains to cultural forms, media and events which reach immense, diverse publics; and which, in doing so, seem to permeate (actual or perceived) socio-economic, cultural and educational boundaries to Classics. One potentially useful focal point might be when such ‘popular classics' are presented and experienced as just one of several strands in wider cultural and educational projects or milieu—alongside Shakespeare, for example, or Egypt—since this may encourage reflection on the distinctiveness (or not) of modern engagements with Greek and Roman antiquity. A consideration of the documentary evidence that exists for the diversity and autonomy of the public's engagements with these cultural forms may challenge, or at least productively add to, the dominant debates in CRS which seem to privilege the literary, political and cultural histories of ‘producers' over ‘receivers' (to use the shorthand of Jauss' problematic terminology). This theme might therefore offer a useful and fresh methodological tool for thinking through CRS practice.

The ‘public' refers to individuals beyond the walls of schools and universities where Classics is traditionally located. This does not exclude the classically educated; indeed their perspective is crucial in the wide spectrum of public engagements. The important point is that the cultural activity is readily accessible in the public domain, and directed towards and experienced by a wide public—thus the terms ‘popular' and ‘mass' come into operation. (n.b. t he perceived or actual boundaries—cultural, geographical and economic—surrounding forms of engagement such as theatre must be considered.)

Studying ‘classical receptions' from only one or two perspectives—e.g. in terms of literature, politics, aesthetics, institutions etc—and not to take into consideration the evidence (which surprisingly often does exist) for the public's engagement and experience is to miss a valuable part of the actual (and not, I would argue, the imagined) life of these cultural forms in the public imagination. To consider audience experience alongside all these other perspectives is to consider ‘classical receptions' truly and valuably in the round. The great diversity of public opinion in response to a single cultural event generates difficult questions which seem to undermine the scholar's search for meaning. Furthermore, the often striking differences between the intentions behind the creation of popular cultural forms and the diverse ways in which they are experienced by the public are challenging. But is it possible that a more meaningful meaning may be located within—and not in spite of—the wide diversity of engagement, and the contradictions between intention and experience?

It is acknowledged that such evidence does not exist for all cultural forms, but those cases where it does (e.g. for radio broadcasts, paperback translations, exhibitions/fairs) seem to encourage a model of reception practice which may lead to a more robust conception of what modes of ‘reception' beyond the literary, aesthetic and political are also possible, and indeed crucially important for a fuller understanding of our subject.  

****

Best Practices in Collaborative Research : ‘Disciplinary Democracy' in Scholarship,
and the Assessment of Scholarship, on Classical Reception
Judith P. Hallett, University of Maryland, USA

My proposed panel will consider how classicists undertaking research into the later reception of ancient Greek and Roman texts, thought and material culture can interact most productively with colleagues from other disciplines who share their intellectual interests. It will develop the theme of a ‘Democratic Turn' in the study and practice of classical receptions by focusing on how to conduct these interactions fairly, inclusively and reflectively, according to the precepts (if not always the actual practices) of contemporary democratic institutions. Consequently, it will foreground the challenges and rewards of fostering not only multiple disciplinary perspectives but also mutual respect and support among fellow researchers, through informed discussion and debate. These challenges include assessing as well as producing the scholarship that emerges from such collaborative endeavors.

In particular, it will seek to address the following general questions:

What are the best, mutually respectful, collaborative practices for classicists eager to connect our research into different areas of classical reception with the work of scholars in other relevant disciplines who are not necessarily trained in the field of classics, or even concerned with classical reception? How do we forge greater recognition among these colleagues that their work is vital to our investigations, and that our investigations have the potential of proving fruitful to their work in turn?

How, moreover, do we classicists help scholars in other disciplines compensate for shortcomings in formal classical learning, and limited awareness of classical influences? What should be our criteria for assessing their work? Similarly, how do we classicists seek help, and constructive criticism, from scholars in other disciplines to remedy our own limitations where their fields, and modes, of inquiry are concerned?

I am particularly interested in mechanisms and strategies for communication between classicists and those in other disciplines at fairly early stages of research activity, so as to minimize the possibility of producing, and publicly sharing, work that will, for various reasons, occasion negative reactions on either side, undermine the intellectual credibility of a project (if not all projects) in classical reception studies, and jeopardize future collaborations. The involvement of colleagues from relevant disciplines in the organizing of conferences on the topic of classical reception, as program committee members and as featured speakers, would seem to be one such strategy. Including non-classicists in the refereeing and editing of articles on classical reception in scholarly journals and manuscripts on classical reception from university presses would be another. But some of the most visible work dealing with classical reception is aimed at broadly constituted, non-specialist audiences, and published (in the case of books) or presented (in the case of films, performances and exhibitions) in commercial venues. How can we help to ensure ‘quality control' and ‘responsible popularizing' in these situations? The question of collaboration between classicists and those in other disciplines within academic institutions themselves is also of concern, since most classics departments, at least in the US, do not yet allow much if any room for classical reception studies within their graduate degree programs.

****

Classics in the modern world: a ‘Democratic Turn'
Lorna Hardwick, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK  

In this first session of our seminar I'd like to try to be a kind of gadfly and question some of the underlying issues. I'm sure a lot of discussion will, rightly, focus on what is meant or understood by the term ‘democratic'. I think it's also important to think about the implications of the word ‘Turn', which has increasingly become a central image in cultural studies, translation studies and in theatre (cultural turns, translation turns, performative turns abound). In classics I suspect the textual turn is already with us. But does ‘turn' imply a change of direction, a swing of the pendulum that redresses imbalances or can it indicate a radical paradigm shift?

At its most basic, a swing of the pendulum away from the restrictions in access to and knowledge about classics would probably be welcomed by most (greater public awareness, better access to texts, art, architecture, ideas; less association with the unacceptable aspects of elitism and exclusion etc). However, a ‘Turn' also implies a change in and perhaps a tightening of the lens and it seems to me that this raises questions not just about the selections/reworkings and debates in the modern contexts but also about their relationships with the ancient texts and contexts. What is marginalised or left out, what is subject to re-examination and re-interpretation? What is given greater prominence? Do clear patterns emerge? Even more interesting, what is wittingly or unwittingly smuggled in, attached to the more acceptable aspects but nevertheless transplanted into modern practice and, potentially, into consciousness? It is too easy, perhaps, to feel a sense of relief that classical material is now increasingly recognised as playing a role in contexts of liberation and across many cultures. Now is a good time to step back from that complacency and reflect on why and how that activity has occurred and to what extent it has been a factor shaping change (as opposed to a reaction to a changing environment). How can we develop sharper methods of enquiry and avoid being seduced by the notion of ‘democracy' (itself under challenge)?

There are questions, too, about the relative roles of Greek and of Roman material and about the need to expose alluring but false associations (e.g. liberation may not necessarily lead to greater democracy; mass access may not increase critical participation or create deliberative communities; adherence to the supposed ancient roots of democracy can be used to justify dominance of others, as Thucydides explored). And of course there are questions about the extent to which changes in the rates and nature of awareness, access, and participation in classical receptions also radically change perceptions of the ancient world and its cultural artifacts, texts and ideas. Taking a historical perspective on that (longer even than 1776 to the present) suggests that the energy of the ancient material in carrying and provoking debate and emotions matches the energy of the moderns in seizing and reworking it so that in the end it defies capture, whether for ‘good' or ‘bad' ends. Is that the most empowering (and hence ‘democratic') aspect of all? Or just ducking the issues?

***********************************