Classical Association Conference 2014: Legacies of Greek Political Thought in America panel, 11-14 April 2014
Working on behalf of the Legacy of Greek Political Thought group, I recently organised a successful panel for the 2014 Classical Association Conference. The challenge was to provide a narrow enough focus that the four papers provided an integrated and coherent narrative, while still appealing to a varied audience of classicists. With that in mind, the panel was focused upon American receptions of Greek political thought, and its aims were to examine and challenge the links between ancient Greek political thought and its modern invocations in the United States.
 |
| The Great Seal of the United States (reverse) |
The reverse of the Great Seal of the United States is a reminder of the Founding Fathers’ ambition to create ‘A New Order of the Ages,’ unlike any previous society. Yet correspondence between the Founders shows a keen awareness of and engagement with past societies. In ‘Is there space for a Greek influence on American Thought?’ Nicholas Cole (Oxford) considered the American revolutionary period and addressed this paradox head-on. Nicholas argued that Greek history and thought made important contributions to American thinking, and that these help to explain the development of American thought in the early republic. But historians need to move beyond the narrow debate on political borrowings towards an appreciation of the wider multiplicity of ways that early Americans engaged with Greek thought.
 |
| Aesop Said So, Hugh Gellert |
Vaulting forward to the twentieth century, Sara Monoson (Northwestern) explored contrasting attitudes to antiquity in ‘Classical sources and the promotion of literacy in radical critique: Diego Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads (1933) and Hugo Gellert’s Aesop Said So (1936).’ Her paper focused on the presence of classical imagery in 1930s expressions of radical critique by visual artists. In his controversial mural for the Rockefeller Center in New York, Diego Rivera used the imagery of damaged yet formidable classical statuary to suggest the corrosiveness of weighty traditions and to question the value of harking back to antiquity. Though sharing his political viewpoint, Hugo Gellert challenged that view of antiquity. He produced books that combine text and illustrations to find other narratives in the sources (chiefly, the figure of Aesop as a view ‘from below’) that were, to him, able to inspire class consciousness and a sophisticated examination of problems like the greed and corruption of the high and mighty.
In the first of two
papers looking at the conservative thinker Leo Strauss, Liz Sawyer (Oxford) presented
‘Leo Strauss, in context: Classical Literature as Political Philosophy in 1950s/1960s
American Universities.’ She examined how Strauss’ use of classical literature,
especially Aristotle, Plato and Thucydides, fitted within the broader context
of how political philosophy and Western literature were taught in the 1950s and
1960s. By studying Strauss’ writings in the light of the educational
methodologies of his time, Liz demonstrated how Strauss’s legacy as the
‘founding father’ of today’s neoconservative movement developed. In the final
paper, ‘The original neoconservative? Leo Strauss’s version of Xenophon’s
version of Socrates,’ I argued that Strauss’s interpretations of Xenophon have
been overlooked by political commentators seeking to praise or malign the (exaggerated) Straussian influence on American politics. Using Strauss’s commentary on
Xenophon’s Oeconomicus as a case
study, I argued that Xenophon, a much more deeper and more nuanced thinker than often portrayed by classicists, rather than Plato or Thucydides, is the
classical key for unlocking Strauss’s political ideology.
The focus on Greek
thought in America gave the panel coherence, whilst differences in the subject
matter and methodological approaches of the speakers ensured variety. Each of
the other papers gave me fresh insights into my own work, and the discussions
which followed were almost as fruitful as the papers themselves (and gave no
indication that any audience members might have over-indulged at the previous
night’s gala dinner). Having spent the build-up to the conference worrying
about my own paper, which passed in a flash, it is only in retrospect that the
real benefits of attending a conference like this became apparent – the
unexpected connections and the perceptive and creative conversations with
fellow delegates made attending this CA conference an enriching experience.
