My dissertation addresses the perplexities of “political courage.” Most treatments of political courage treat it as analogous to martial courage, and characterize it phenomenologically as an affirmation of an “inside” and a struggle against an “outside.” In this way, courage has often been seen as an “ambivalent” political virtue: alongside the association of courage with heroic struggles for justice, courage has also been linked to stubbornness, xenophobia, and belligerence. The aim of my dissertation is not to reject the importance of martial courage for politics. Political life frequently involves causes to be fought for and adversaries to face. Nonetheless, the conceptual imperialism of this account of courage has deeply distorting effects on our understanding of politics and of courage. My aim is to show that political courage is distinct from martial courage, and contains an irreducible aspect of openness to change: both change within the political world of things and relations, and change to the distinctions and exclusions that ground individuals’ identities.
The dissertation proceeds primarily through a critique of Classical Athenian writings, including philosophical treatises, historical works, plays, and speeches, emphasizing the ways in which courage is invoked and problematized by their authors. The first chapter addresses the tensions of political courage in classical Athens. I argue that the distinction between war (polemos) and civil war (stasis) testifies to an uncertain and contested relation of martial courage to political courage. Stasis was feared not just for its violence and devastation but for its corrupting influence on words, especially andreia (courage or manliness). Stasis signifies a situation in which the masculinism of courage and the structural violence that stabilized its signification could be radically contested. The second chapter looks to Foucault’s lectures on parrhēsia, or courageous truth-telling. In this chapter, I turn to an under-theorized figure in the “game” of parrhēsia: the democratic citizen who listens to harsh truths. Through this figure, I assess the possibilities of courageous listening as a critical and nourishing democratic practice. Finally, the third chapter turns to the Greek traveler and the risky endeavor of giving and seeking hospitality. By accepting outsiders into their spaces, Greeks both created networks that could enrich and even save their lives; they could also set in motion events that bring down the power of kings.