Opening part of interview with Mary Beard by Berna González Harbour:
These days, the classical world is an object of desire for a far right that is trying to appropriate its imperial ideas and aesthetics; but fortunately, this world has a defender who was here long before them: Mary Beard, with her energy and vehemence still intact at age 71.
The leading expert on ancient Greeks and Romans, emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge and recipient of the 2016 Princess of Asturias Award, addresses the phenomenon in her latest book,Talking Classics: The Shock of the Old, a demonstration that knowledge is best paired with engagement and enthusiasm.
Question.Why do the classics inspire the far right today?
Answer.There is a deeply far-right appropriation of the classics. But the classics don’t have a politics. They have also been reference points for the left, for democracy, for social change… They inspired the French and American revolutions, and Marx wrote his thesis on Greek philosophy. The classics are at once revolutionary and conservative, which is why they are interesting.
Q.But you tell us in your book that they have been appropriated more strongly today than before.
A.In the 20th century it was the case with Hitler and Mussolini, and today Trump is very committed to classical architecture. We need to recognize and confront that, to be aware that the legacy of the ancient world addressed civic values, thought, politics and community life. Take Spartacus, a rebellious slave who broke barriers and has been a symbol of freedom for the enslaved for centuries. The extreme right is using the ancient world, but they do not have a monopoly on that cause.
Q.Are they manipulating it?
A.They simplify it and generally get it wrong. The ancient world is there for everyone, not just academics. But my job is sometimes to say, look, the classical world wasn’t like you claim it was. One of the very obvious cases is the way there has been an admiration amongst the far-right for pure, white, classical sculpture. My obligation as an academic is to say Rome was not like in the movies. It was colorful, smelly, dirty, diverse, and to me that made it more interesting, not less. It is important that we counter those things. No one has the right to control the classical world; it is part of the way we think about things.
Anecdotal of course, but I have often heard people on the left reduce classics to "old white men" stuff that should be disregarded entirely, and if you completely abandon something is it really any surprise when someone else takes it over?
Have you ever seen a classics department students? It is an a very left-wing bunch in my experience, maybe outside some religion-affiliated universities.
I don't think that's true. The old white man discourse in classics is more about the translators, historians, and neoclassicism (and other classicist movements) broadly. Not the texts themselves.
I always took it to be about Modernism's Grand Narratives, which are created and maintained by institutions, which aren't necessarily full of only old white men
I think you might be conflating classic history with classic literature, but I could be wrong. In any case, I agree that the public at large often relies on hyper-reductionist takes on historical phenomena to drive home political or social points. Where I disagree is on your implicit timeline. The right co-opted Roman aesthetics going back to Nazi Germany (and probably even earlier). So, you can't really say that the far-right has taken over something that the left has abandoned because they never stopped co-opting it to begin with. You also seem to be make a not-so-subtle claim that the "left" abandoning classic history left it open to the right, and I just don't see how that makes sense. The right has made (and continues to make) claims to it whether the left does or not
I think it's false to think that one political side can simply "claim" territory but in any case actual Classics departments are full of young left wing queer people who love Madeleine Miller and Percy Jackson so it's hardly like the left has given up anyway.
I've never heard it in that context. I've heard it the context of "can we make sure we're also reading the works of women and poc, not just books by white men"
Western Civ is antiquated and we should do away with it. It is a (somewhat) teleological construction that reads history backwards rather than forwards. It flattens a lot of differences between time periods, people, and places, and is really hand-wavey regarding who/what gets included as part of "Western" civilization and when. This is especially true because the concept of the "West" itself develops long after any ideas of Western civilization. And even the term civilization is an early modern construct. Essentially, Western Civilization is a social and ideological attempt to draw a linear relationship from a (very) deep past to the early modern period and to, in many ways, justify and reify the existence of certain nation states that were nascent at the time. It makes no sense.
Yes, this right here. This is exactly the sentiment that is pushing the right to "co-opt" the classics. That is, defend it from the Left that is is hell-bent on "decolonizing" our civic acculturation, ultimately destroying the very mythos that unifies America and western civilization. Whether the historical narrative is right or wrong just badly misses the point.
I find your take odd and based more on nationalism than sound reason. The historical narrative being right or wrong is the only point. What matters from an academic standpoint is whether a framing provides sufficient explanatory power to justify its continued use. You are thinking in terms of politics. I am not. Western Civilization doesn't make sense as a historical frame for the development of societies in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean up to the early modern era.
I don't care about "decolonizing our civic acculturation" or a "mythos that unifies America and western civilization." This mythos you speak of is nonsensical, and as such, should no longer be taught. You can make this about the "left" or whomever you like.
Are you suggesting that we maintain incoherent, illogical ideological frameworks (which Western Civilization is) all for the sake of social and political cohesion? That we reject new and better ideas in order to cling to some fictive past and to justify our present? That sounds profoundly anti-intellectual.
> Are you suggesting that we maintain incoherent, illogical ideological frameworks (which Western Civilization is) all for the sake of social and political cohesion? That we reject new and better ideas in order to cling to some fictive past and to justify our present?
Yes, absolutely. Every nation needs a unifying mythos to sustain cultural cohesion, offer a foundation for shared values, and ensure some manner of selflessness when sacrifice is called on for the greater good. Without a unifying mythos a nation is just an economic zone, valuable only as far as it is currently economically beneficial, and to be disregarded the moment it isn't. You cannot just throw millions of people together with nothing to bind them into one people and expect the enterprise to be prosperous. Laws and institutions only get you so far; the institutions themselves are composed of these very people. As the shared ideals wane in value in the people, the ability of the institutions to protect those values also wanes.
> That sounds profoundly anti-intellectual.
Truth doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is the unique privilege of those in the ivory tower to promote truth while eschewing political reality and the effect their truth seeking has on it. This isn't being anti-intellectual, this is a recognition of the unique role the academy has as a foundational institution of western civilization. It should support humanism, civilization broadly, and western civilization especially. This doesn't have to be at the expense of truth. But the academy also cannot ignore the role that foundational myths has as a bedrock of western civilization. You don't destroy the foundation your house is built on without having something stronger to replace it.
I disagree with you vehemently. Your position is a dangerous stance to take both politically (what should we with dissidents who dare threaten the national narrative? We've gone down this pathway before.) and intellectually. I am disturbed and surprised to see a take like this.
Actively working to undermine social cohesion is dangerous and should be treated as such. That's been a truism since forever so I'm surprised that you're surprised to see it articulated. Perhaps part of the problem is that too many of us no longer have an extended view of the country and where its heading in mind. We're too consumed with the day to day political battles. Too many of us feel we don't have a stake in the long term prosperity of the country.
>what should we with dissidents who dare threaten the national narrative?
The issue isn't about speech. It's about not assuming any responsibility for its consequences. We should all exercise our rights with that in mind.
This is getting downvoted because it has a political slant as written, but it’s very much true, no matter what is being abandoned or what group is doing the abandoning
they haven't taken it over. They're appropriating it for public consumption. Their takes tend to be too ignorant and dumb for academics.
your anecdotal evidence sounds like simplistic criticism from people who don't want to venture into the nuances of history. it could be a failure of the education system but also just some people don't wanna learn Classics, and that's fine.
Using thr term "left" like you have, and talking about ownership...World is not made up of just two sides fighting to "take over" something. Life is more complicated than that. It's the people who think it is that simple that cause a lot of the problems.
[OP] marketrent | 7 hours ago
Opening part of interview with Mary Beard by Berna González Harbour:
These days, the classical world is an object of desire for a far right that is trying to appropriate its imperial ideas and aesthetics; but fortunately, this world has a defender who was here long before them: Mary Beard, with her energy and vehemence still intact at age 71.
The leading expert on ancient Greeks and Romans, emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge and recipient of the 2016 Princess of Asturias Award, addresses the phenomenon in her latest book, Talking Classics: The Shock of the Old, a demonstration that knowledge is best paired with engagement and enthusiasm.
Question. Why do the classics inspire the far right today?
Answer. There is a deeply far-right appropriation of the classics. But the classics don’t have a politics. They have also been reference points for the left, for democracy, for social change… They inspired the French and American revolutions, and Marx wrote his thesis on Greek philosophy. The classics are at once revolutionary and conservative, which is why they are interesting.
Q. But you tell us in your book that they have been appropriated more strongly today than before.
A. In the 20th century it was the case with Hitler and Mussolini, and today Trump is very committed to classical architecture. We need to recognize and confront that, to be aware that the legacy of the ancient world addressed civic values, thought, politics and community life. Take Spartacus, a rebellious slave who broke barriers and has been a symbol of freedom for the enslaved for centuries. The extreme right is using the ancient world, but they do not have a monopoly on that cause.
Q. Are they manipulating it?
A. They simplify it and generally get it wrong. The ancient world is there for everyone, not just academics. But my job is sometimes to say, look, the classical world wasn’t like you claim it was. One of the very obvious cases is the way there has been an admiration amongst the far-right for pure, white, classical sculpture. My obligation as an academic is to say Rome was not like in the movies. It was colorful, smelly, dirty, diverse, and to me that made it more interesting, not less. It is important that we counter those things. No one has the right to control the classical world; it is part of the way we think about things.
vylliki | 7 hours ago
VD Hanson has made a late-career out of this. Sadly.
MKEMARVEL | 7 hours ago
Anecdotal of course, but I have often heard people on the left reduce classics to "old white men" stuff that should be disregarded entirely, and if you completely abandon something is it really any surprise when someone else takes it over?
nautilius87 | 6 hours ago
Have you ever seen a classics department students? It is an a very left-wing bunch in my experience, maybe outside some religion-affiliated universities.
catnip_varnish | 6 hours ago
I don't think that's true. The old white man discourse in classics is more about the translators, historians, and neoclassicism (and other classicist movements) broadly. Not the texts themselves.
Vegetable-Category13 | 4 hours ago
I always took it to be about Modernism's Grand Narratives, which are created and maintained by institutions, which aren't necessarily full of only old white men
Puzzleheaded_Meat522 | 6 hours ago
I think you might be conflating classic history with classic literature, but I could be wrong. In any case, I agree that the public at large often relies on hyper-reductionist takes on historical phenomena to drive home political or social points. Where I disagree is on your implicit timeline. The right co-opted Roman aesthetics going back to Nazi Germany (and probably even earlier). So, you can't really say that the far-right has taken over something that the left has abandoned because they never stopped co-opting it to begin with. You also seem to be make a not-so-subtle claim that the "left" abandoning classic history left it open to the right, and I just don't see how that makes sense. The right has made (and continues to make) claims to it whether the left does or not
Snikhop | 5 hours ago
I think it's false to think that one political side can simply "claim" territory but in any case actual Classics departments are full of young left wing queer people who love Madeleine Miller and Percy Jackson so it's hardly like the left has given up anyway.
SilverFringeBoots | 6 hours ago
I've never heard it in that context. I've heard it the context of "can we make sure we're also reading the works of women and poc, not just books by white men"
Fippy-Darkpaw | 6 hours ago
You are getting downvoted but there is a trend in academics to remove western civ, and it is usually a more left sentiment.
A more worldly exposure to history and culture is a good thing, but I feel some of the messaging for their reasoning is often misguided.
Puzzleheaded_Meat522 | 5 hours ago
Western Civ is antiquated and we should do away with it. It is a (somewhat) teleological construction that reads history backwards rather than forwards. It flattens a lot of differences between time periods, people, and places, and is really hand-wavey regarding who/what gets included as part of "Western" civilization and when. This is especially true because the concept of the "West" itself develops long after any ideas of Western civilization. And even the term civilization is an early modern construct. Essentially, Western Civilization is a social and ideological attempt to draw a linear relationship from a (very) deep past to the early modern period and to, in many ways, justify and reify the existence of certain nation states that were nascent at the time. It makes no sense.
hackinthebochs | 3 hours ago
Yes, this right here. This is exactly the sentiment that is pushing the right to "co-opt" the classics. That is, defend it from the Left that is is hell-bent on "decolonizing" our civic acculturation, ultimately destroying the very mythos that unifies America and western civilization. Whether the historical narrative is right or wrong just badly misses the point.
Puzzleheaded_Meat522 | 3 hours ago
I find your take odd and based more on nationalism than sound reason. The historical narrative being right or wrong is the only point. What matters from an academic standpoint is whether a framing provides sufficient explanatory power to justify its continued use. You are thinking in terms of politics. I am not. Western Civilization doesn't make sense as a historical frame for the development of societies in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean up to the early modern era.
I don't care about "decolonizing our civic acculturation" or a "mythos that unifies America and western civilization." This mythos you speak of is nonsensical, and as such, should no longer be taught. You can make this about the "left" or whomever you like.
Are you suggesting that we maintain incoherent, illogical ideological frameworks (which Western Civilization is) all for the sake of social and political cohesion? That we reject new and better ideas in order to cling to some fictive past and to justify our present? That sounds profoundly anti-intellectual.
hackinthebochs | 2 hours ago
> Are you suggesting that we maintain incoherent, illogical ideological frameworks (which Western Civilization is) all for the sake of social and political cohesion? That we reject new and better ideas in order to cling to some fictive past and to justify our present?
Yes, absolutely. Every nation needs a unifying mythos to sustain cultural cohesion, offer a foundation for shared values, and ensure some manner of selflessness when sacrifice is called on for the greater good. Without a unifying mythos a nation is just an economic zone, valuable only as far as it is currently economically beneficial, and to be disregarded the moment it isn't. You cannot just throw millions of people together with nothing to bind them into one people and expect the enterprise to be prosperous. Laws and institutions only get you so far; the institutions themselves are composed of these very people. As the shared ideals wane in value in the people, the ability of the institutions to protect those values also wanes.
> That sounds profoundly anti-intellectual.
Truth doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is the unique privilege of those in the ivory tower to promote truth while eschewing political reality and the effect their truth seeking has on it. This isn't being anti-intellectual, this is a recognition of the unique role the academy has as a foundational institution of western civilization. It should support humanism, civilization broadly, and western civilization especially. This doesn't have to be at the expense of truth. But the academy also cannot ignore the role that foundational myths has as a bedrock of western civilization. You don't destroy the foundation your house is built on without having something stronger to replace it.
Puzzleheaded_Meat522 | 2 hours ago
I disagree with you vehemently. Your position is a dangerous stance to take both politically (what should we with dissidents who dare threaten the national narrative? We've gone down this pathway before.) and intellectually. I am disturbed and surprised to see a take like this.
hackinthebochs | 2 hours ago
Actively working to undermine social cohesion is dangerous and should be treated as such. That's been a truism since forever so I'm surprised that you're surprised to see it articulated. Perhaps part of the problem is that too many of us no longer have an extended view of the country and where its heading in mind. We're too consumed with the day to day political battles. Too many of us feel we don't have a stake in the long term prosperity of the country.
>what should we with dissidents who dare threaten the national narrative?
The issue isn't about speech. It's about not assuming any responsibility for its consequences. We should all exercise our rights with that in mind.
VaughnVapor | 6 hours ago
This is getting downvoted because it has a political slant as written, but it’s very much true, no matter what is being abandoned or what group is doing the abandoning
ThatPhatKid_CanDraw | an hour ago
they haven't taken it over. They're appropriating it for public consumption. Their takes tend to be too ignorant and dumb for academics.
your anecdotal evidence sounds like simplistic criticism from people who don't want to venture into the nuances of history. it could be a failure of the education system but also just some people don't wanna learn Classics, and that's fine.
Using thr term "left" like you have, and talking about ownership...World is not made up of just two sides fighting to "take over" something. Life is more complicated than that. It's the people who think it is that simple that cause a lot of the problems.