I initially trained as a historian (my Master of Arts is in Hellenistic Studies — the period just after Alexander the Great). As such, I’m fascinated by appeals to history to justify ideas in modern life. They can often be fun to read about; after all there are some great stories in history. The challenge is that most of the examples are stretched too thin to make a meaningful point. The history is often abused to make the analogy work. Furthermore, often the history just isn’t necessary to make the point. It simply doesn’t help. So, when writing ask yourself, do you really need a dodgy historical example?
Limit Yourself To Not Too Many Bloodbaths
Giorgos Kallis seeks to discuss how people and societies can be “self-limited” (Limits And Self-Limits). He casts back for analogies to history. Have people been self-limited in the past? Of course, we only have very partial views of history but that isn’t going to stop him cherry picking examples.
In Plutarch or Thucydides, for instance, one finds an Ancient Greek world of philosophy, democracy, and sun (with the occasional bloodbath). There is no complaining about stagnation, premature deaths, or low life expectancies.
Kallie, 2019, page 42
This glowing view of Ancient Greek life, I believe, is designed to tell us we should be more like them. But we really, really shouldn’t. The joking comment about the “occasional bloodbath” might lead you to wonder whether all was well in the Ancient Greek world. A red flag might appear thinking about the identity of the second writer Kallis noted, Thucydides. This Ancient Athenian’s major contribution to the world was a History of the Peloponnesian War. These weren’t peaceful people content with their lots and happy to share with their neighbors. They didn’t talk about the sort of life expectancies we get today mostly likely because it never occurred to them it was possible. They were too busy trying to survive to a half-decent age.
Should We Be Like The Ancient Greeks?
According to Kallis we can, apparently, learn a lot from the Ancient Greeks who limited themselves. Solon left after giving his set of laws to Athens so he would not be tempted to be a tyrant. Yet, plenty of Ancient Greek tyrants didn’t leave. Indeed, tyrant is a Greek word.
Kallis waxes lyrical about Athenian democracy. He is clearly aware that the franchise was limited but the appalling treatment of women, resident aliens, and slaves gets only a cursory nod.
Major aspects of Greek civilization, not least the position of the women and slaves, are not to be admired.
Kallis, 2019, page 78
I’m with him about not admiring the social structure but his caveat seems a bit late after telling us how wonderful the Ancient Greeks were. Almost as though the book was written and some reviewer said, “what about the women?”. And Kallis responded, “the women will be fine as long as we throw in a small disclaimer”. (It is the equivalent of adding two bottles of sweet sherry for the ladies to a ridiculous amount of beer for the blokes. You’ll need to be old to remember the Castlemaine XXXX lager advert I am referring to but you can look it up.)
Does Time Heal All Wounds?
After going on about the wonders of Ancient Greek temperance he reminds us they weren’t perfect. Which left me wondering what the praise was all about. In a short book, why did he spend so much time on how wonderful the Ancient Greeks were if they weren’t great after all?
The weirdest bit was his praise of Sparta. (There is a word for this, Laconophilia — admiration of Sparta, which is a term I never thought I’d have to use in the 21st Century. Just think fascism but fewer blackshirts and more six-packs). The Spartans apparently limited themselves, with relatively few pointless foreign wars. One reason why Sparta limited its foreign adventures was surely that it was already an occupying force at home. It had suppressed a population in its own territory, known as Helots. The tales of how the Helots were treated are shocking. Truly appalling stuff. Maybe Spartans limited themselves from evil-doing far from home because they gorged on it within easy commuting distance.
Imagine I, as a British person, waxed lyrical about the British Empire. People on the far left like Kallis would, absolutely correctly, point out the appalling-ness of it. Yet, apparently we are supposed to nod along as we are told the Spartans were fantastic. Maybe Kallis wants us to achieve net zero by setting up a state focused on small-scale agriculture on the backs of enslaved Helots. Strange. I guess to Kallis if it was done a long time ago by a pre-capitalist society it doesn’t count as an atrocity.
Do You Really Need A Dodgy Historical Example?
My main concern with the use of historical examples is that often I can’t work out what the point of them is. If the Ancient Greeks were great people that is nice. If the Ancient Greeks were terrible that isn’t good. But either way, it doesn’t really impact what we need to do to be sustainable nowadays.
For more bad attempts to seek wisdom from history see here, here, and here.
Read: Giorgos Kallis (2019) Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong And Why Environmentalists Should Care?, Stanford University Press
