Complete History of Sparta &/vs. Athens (or(Tradition vs. Innovation))

Innovation vs. Tradition

Ancient societies consist of collections of individuals grouped for specific purposes; in numbers that were resource supportable by and as could peacefully cohabitate. When divergent goals emerged the larger group would either repress or include the new goals. In this goals should be taken to include ends, means, and processes; for the process designer his goal is now to see his modified process accepted by the larger group to his benefit. The degree to which a society would welcome new goals could also be seen as the importance they placed upon innovation, whereas, groups more governed by previously set down guidelines would place higher value on tradition.

In the innovative society the collectively conceived society ideal would forever be changing though the inclusion and contact by other groups (more on this later) and the compounding of invention through cultivated centers and cultures of innovation (schools, libraries, theatre competitions, etc..). Societies based on tradition would be focused on past events with ancestor worship and strict codes of social mores tied to idealized historical behavior. Socrates and Plato both held this view, that a society was to be designed in perfect harmony and then forever fixed, with the anointed foreign artists barred from the city’s entry.

A perfect example of these different worldviews was played out between the Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. Athens commitment to innovation can be clearly seen through the annual Dionysia, which gave playwrights a venue for 3 tragic (summarizing/interpreting past events) and one satyr play, which dealt with the mythological in a comedic manner.

Here is a culture encouraging its visionaries to reevaluate and lay out lessons to be learned from the past as well as to explain how we fit into the world with the divine. In addition, by having the writers compete for the prize innovation is encouraged, as the stories themselves would be common knowledge, the entertainment would have to come in how they were told. Especially for the comedy, much of comedy’s power comes through novelty, or the viewer’s surprise, so a successful comedic play would be full of novel, surprising, and innovative events.

Sparta, on the other hand, was all about tradition. An example of this would be that if a child was born that did not meet the pre-set qualifications; it would be left out to die from exposure. This molding of a population, to so overrule a citizen’s natural instincts of individual linage advancement in favor of group cohesion, is quite impressive.

Brief History of Sparta &/vs Athens

Sparta ruled their region starting from 546, in 510 they assisted Athens in overthrowing the dictatorship set up by Hippias, leaving the Athenians to institute a democratic system. Sparta was one of the largest powers when invasions came from Persia but did not participate in the first conflict (Dorias), leaving the fight to be won by Athens in 490. The second time around was with Xerxes and Sparta didn’t have the same luxury, the option was there for Athens to side with Persia if coerced and Sparta did not want another competitor in the region (or for Athens to grow stronger). Didn’t happen though, as the second campaign was won it was undecided what to do with the cities that had been under Persian rule during the invasions. Sparta wished to rule them as little Spartas and import Anatolians who would spread and enforce Spartan culture. Athens, on the other hand, offered them self-rule and membership in the Delian League, a counterbalance to the Hellenic alliance, a cooperative city state group headed by Sparta, who had denied Athens membership. Following this came a time of instability as a support city of Sparta revolted in 472, and then in 464 with an earthquake devastating Sparta and their slave population revolting at the opportunity. Athens was persuaded to send troops but dismayed to discover fellow Greeks as the revolting slaves (their own slaves were foreign captured war booty and offspring). Sparta, upon sensing this sentiment, sent the Athenians home, worrying that they would end up supporting the rebel slaves. The resulting resource conflicts and regional leadership decisions blossomed into the Peloponnesian Wars which pitted the Hellenistic alliance vs. the Delian League which Athens lost in 404. However, in 378 Athens started another anti-Spartan confederacy, the Second Athenian Empire and in 403 they regained self-control as Spartan military needs were felt elsewhere. Thebes was a member of the Second Athenian Empire, ill-disposed after Sparta invaded ten years prior, and it was the Thebians who conclusively defeated Sparta in 371. Following this the Thebians grew in power but were ousted by Athens and other Delian League members as the primary power in 362. Note that Athens displaced Thebes only after Sparta was safely out of the picture.

Funnily enough, the Spartans had previously backed Thebes as a regional power against Athens in 457, and the Thebians planned to completely destroy Athens in 403, following Sparta’s victory, but allowed them to rebuild in 404 to act as an ally against Sparta. Thebes also paved the way to the end of Greek self-rule by inviting aid from Philip of Macedon, who then stuck around to have a say in the area in 338, and whose son burned Thebes to the ground when they revolted against Alexander in 335.

The main point to draw here is that the sheer number of alliances and changing political conditions will end up favoring innovation. Resources can be collected and power centralized but as world conditions are forever changing, the populations promoting new solutions will be able to better accommodate a much larger and more diverse group than populations promoting tradition.

The Manana Complex

The Manana Complex

Agrarian vs. Polis Business Culture

Business, what is it? A narrow definition would say it’s the exchange system for transfer of goods and services between discreet entities, but broadly one could simply say, “It’s anything I do, say or think”. Consider the useage of the phrase, “Stay out of my business!”, and the broad array of objects it can be applied to, for example, the song Business Time, by The Flight of the Concords, which details a couple’s uninspiring pre-sex routine. Just as the topic of business can be broadened to include everyday minutia, the cultural minutia also flows the other direction to color an individual’s perception of business.  This paper will explore fundamental differences in business culture between agrarian and city dwelling populations and the resulting behavioral patterns those differences encourage.

Sections:

1.    Resource Tied Relative Group Cohesion

2.    Tradition vs. Innovation (backward or forward thinking)Music, food, art

3.    Education & Skill Set Development

4.    Social Mobility and the Apple Tree Analogy ((big tree, many ladders, many positions to fill and move through)

5.    Travel, Trade and Marketing Media Beartraps

But first, a note on the writing, the paper has been done in the scholastic method through presented discourses. Ideally, this collection of beliefs would be presented before a group with the a priori assumptions available for challenge; however, this is not practical. Attention has been given to make the postulates and following assumptions clear though the author acknowledges his own, inescapable, personal bias and limited view. Evolutionary and behavioral psychologies have provided the basis for much of this writing.

Resource Tied Relative Group Cohesion

In the Middle Ages there were 3 classes to which you could belong, the nobility, the church, or the 3^rd estate (the people who worked). Belonging to the nobility offered the best shot at resources desired in the short term, as the temporal power they could take what was desired and create laws to justify. The church offered long term physical security though communal efforts and an opportunity to specialize labor in exchange for group obedience. The majority of any population was the 3^rd estate, made up by the farmers, merchants, craftsmen and laborers. For these people life was unpredictable, the nobility was free from most legal concerns, and the church held papal courts, so there was little legal recourse if wronged by a member from either group. Those two populations also had the first privileges of goods brought in by trade, or created locally, which resulted in the 3^rd estate first bearing the burden of shortages among all classes of goods.

In response to these conditions, individuals would seek out a patron in the nobility, church or more affluent member of the 3^rd estate in an attempt to obtain a voice in the courts, regular work, or even a reliable source of food and shelter. Professional groups, such as the Masons, also emerged to help transfer skills and hedge an individual’s potential shortfalls among the greater community. In many ways these groups mimicked the role of the church by providing resource networks though individual group members, collective group projects and private court systems.

Within each of these three groups there is a complex but agreed upon (as a condition of group membership) hierarchical order. Higher levels offered greater resource availability alongside greater oversight. At the lowest levels all of one’s own labor would be directed by an external force and through different methods in each group an individual could come to direct their own labor, then choose and direct their own labor, and then oversee the labor of others to a larger and larger degree. 

The nobility offered men advancement through titles and privileges bestowed by the individuals who were in a position to do such things; by curing their favor or by a real advancement of their goals. Women could marry in, up, or hang around as a mistress to advance their lot, the real successes were the male heir producing type or the best option in a lineage conflict. Either sex could branch out and become a noble merchant, or a religious noble, but their noble status would only benefit indirectly. 

In the church, education and obedience would take you to the professional level, 10 years of study, demonstration of group ideals though visible prayer and collective benefiting labor could qualify you as a priest, an individual licensed to perform the mass and to be a communities personal representative of God, but even then other individuals in the church would have the power to stop your advancement. After this level it would be partly a demonstration of the group objectives but really it would be though currying the favor of the individuals making advancement decisions. 

The process from priest to bishop to cardinal to pope is all elected, and people in the position to advance others would be deeply committed to the existing system that provided their power, and would want to advance individuals that shared their own goals and were committed to protecting the existing system.   

The clergy would also branch out into mercantilism or through the nobility, and these relationships could be of great assistance in currying the favor of their superiors. Because the church had great use for consumer goods as well as political favors, not specializing in either department itself, an individual would be able to satisfy the unprovided for desires of the advancers and rise in status more rapidly than an individual only advancing the stated goals of the group.

Therefore, resource network building would be a major goal of advancement minded individuals in communities built upon relativistic advancement measures. If large enough, these networks would act as stabilizing forces in the greater community; as mercantilism and political structure is the most productive in stable political environments, so the clergy would have incentive to stabilize the area if their own standing was strong, just as to spread discord if their position was weak. The greater organization down to the parish priest would be influenced by the groups financially supporting them, and would publicly work to advance the goals of either the nobility or 3^rd estate.

Power in the 3^rd estate came directly from the ability to direct others labor, through either the material resources to buy an individual’s time or as the director of a charismatic collective goal. The true goals benefit’s ownership, control or distribution rarely lay in the hands of the group members, but the belief that it would upon the success of the undertaking, or simply that the group’s lot would be improved, is a constant presence in persuasive literature from any group. 

This segment, the population subset that exists primarily in the 3^rd estate and comes to power through the acquisition and direction of labor, is the group focused on in this study. It exists within a greater system of forces that will exert influence and provide for gain, thereby predisposing a population’s advancement along desired channels. For example, a government who values scientific advancement above all else and creates a multitude of high paying jobs for scientists is creating the environment that will encourage a greater quantity of scientists to emerge. 3^rd estate groups, as all other groups, will act in their self-interest to help encourage conditions that will lead to the success of the group.

Most times groups rise to power through innovation and improvement on current offerings. Next we’ll explore how the use of innovation will further subdivide this group.