In game-theoretical terms, an ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium, being a Nash equilibrium that is also "evolutionarily stable." Thus, once fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant)
strategies from replacing it (although this does not preclude the
possibility that a better strategy, or set of strategies, will emerge in
response to selective pressures resulting from environmental change).
History
Evolutionarily stable strategies were defined and introduced by John Maynard Smith and George R. Price in a 1973 Nature paper. Such was the time taken in peer-reviewing the paper for Nature that this was preceded by a 1972 essay by Maynard Smith in a book of essays titled On Evolution. The 1972 essay is sometimes cited instead of the 1973 paper, but university libraries are much more likely to have copies of Nature. Papers in Nature are usually short; in 1974, Maynard Smith published a longer paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Maynard Smith explains further in his 1982 book Evolution and the Theory of Games. Sometimes these are cited instead. In fact, the ESS has become so
central to game theory that often no citation is given, as the reader is
assumed to be familiar with it.
Maynard Smith mathematically formalised a verbal argument made by
Price, which he read while peer-reviewing Price's paper. When Maynard
Smith realized that the somewhat disorganised Price was not ready to
revise his article for publication, he offered to add Price as
co-author.
Maynard Smith on p.174 of the Postscript in his, 1982 work Evolution and the Theory of Games
argues that the concept of an ESS is itself polyphyletic (i.e. derives
from more than one common evolutionary ancestral group or ancestor). In
this he not only mentions Price but also list various other sources for
the concept. These include the following:
variable behaviour being explained in terms of frequency-dependent selection which he sources to Madhav Gadgil's 1972 work on Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection, and Geoff Parker's 1970 work on The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria.
equilibrium by equalising the payoffs for producing sons and daughters, which he sources to Richard F. Shaw and James Dawson Mohler (1953)
the idea that reciprocal altruism can be understood for the same two opponents in a repeated game as an ESS being sourced to Robert Trivers (1971).
But the concept proper was derived from R. H. MacArthur and W. D. Hamilton's work on sex ratios, derived from Fisher's principle, especially Hamilton's (1967) concept of an unbeatable strategy. Maynard Smith was jointly awarded the 1999 Crafoord Prize
for his development of the concept of evolutionarily stable strategies
and the application of game theory to the evolution of behaviour.
In the social sciences, the primary interest is not in an ESS as the end of biological evolution, but as an end point in cultural evolution or individual learning.
The Nash equilibrium is the traditional solution concept in game theory. It depends on the cognitive abilities of the players. It is assumed that players are aware of the structure of the game and consciously try to predict the moves of their opponents and to maximize their own payoffs. In addition, it is presumed that all the players know this (see common knowledge). These assumptions are then used to explain why players choose Nash equilibrium strategies.
Evolutionarily stable strategies are motivated entirely
differently. Here, it is presumed that the players' strategies are
biologically encoded and heritable.
Individuals have no control over their strategy and need not be aware
of the game. They reproduce and are subject to the forces of natural selection, with the payoffs of the game representing reproductive success (biological fitness). It is imagined that alternative strategies of the game occasionally occur, via a process like mutation. To be an ESS, a strategy must be resistant to these alternatives.
Given the radically different motivating assumptions, it may come
as a surprise that ESSes and Nash equilibria often coincide. In fact,
every ESS corresponds to a Nash equilibrium, but some Nash equilibria
are not ESSes.
Nash equilibrium
An ESS is a refined or modified form of a Nash equilibrium.
(See the next section for examples which contrast the two.) In a Nash
equilibrium, if all players adopt their respective parts, no player can benefit by switching to any alternative strategy. In a two player game, it is a strategy pair. Let E(S,T) represent the payoff for playing strategy S against strategy T. The strategy pair (S, S) is a Nash equilibrium in a two player game if and only if for both players, for any strategy T:
E(S,S) ≥ E(T,S)
In this definition, a strategy T≠S can be a neutral alternative to S (scoring equally well, but not better).
A Nash equilibrium is presumed to be stable even if T scores equally, on the assumption that there is no long-term incentive for players to adopt T instead of S. This fact represents the point of departure of the ESS.
Maynard Smith and Price specify two conditions for a strategy S to be an ESS. For all T≠S, either
E(S,S) > E(T,S), or
E(S,S) = E(T,S) and E(S,T) > E(T,T)
The first condition is sometimes called a strict Nash equilibrium. The second is sometimes called "Maynard Smith's second condition". The second condition means that although strategy T is neutral with respect to the payoff against strategy S, the population of players who continue to play strategy S has an advantage when playing against T.
There is also an alternative, stronger definition of ESS, due to Thomas. This places a different emphasis on the role of the Nash equilibrium
concept in the ESS concept. Following the terminology given in the
first definition above, this definition requires that for all T≠S
E(S,S) ≥ E(T,S), and
E(S,T) > E(T,T)
In this formulation, the first condition specifies that the strategy
is a Nash equilibrium, and the second specifies that Maynard Smith's
second condition is met. Note that the two definitions are not precisely
equivalent: for example, each pure strategy in the coordination game
below is an ESS by the first definition but not the second.
In words, this definition looks like this: The payoff of the
first player when both players play strategy S is higher than (or equal
to) the payoff of the first player when he changes to another strategy T
and the second player keeps his strategy S and the payoff of
the first player when only his opponent changes his strategy to T is
higher than his payoff in case that both of players change their
strategies to T.
This formulation more clearly highlights the role of the Nash
equilibrium condition in the ESS. It also allows for a natural
definition of related concepts such as a weak ESS or an evolutionarily stable set.
Examples of differences between Nash equilibria and ESSes
Cooperate
Defect
Cooperate
3, 3
1, 4
Defect
4, 1
2, 2
Prisoner's Dilemma
A
B
A
2, 2
1, 2
B
2, 1
2, 2
Harm thy neighbor
In most simple games, the ESSes and Nash equilibria coincide perfectly. For instance, in the prisoner's dilemma there is only one Nash equilibrium, and its strategy (Defect) is also an ESS.
Some games may have Nash equilibria that are not ESSes. For
example, in harm thy neighbor (whose payoff matrix is shown here) both (A, A) and (B, B) are Nash equilibria, since players cannot do better by switching away from either. However, only B is an ESS (and a strong Nash). A is not an ESS, so B can neutrally invade a population of A strategists and predominate, because B scores higher against B than A does against B. This dynamic is captured by Maynard Smith's second condition, since E(A, A) = E(B, A), but it is not the case that E(A,B) > E(B,B).
C
D
C
2, 2
1, 2
D
2, 1
0, 0
Harm everyone
Swerve
Stay
Swerve
0,0
−1,+1
Stay
+1,−1
−20,−20
Chicken
Nash equilibria with equally scoring alternatives can be ESSes. For example, in the game Harm everyone, C is an ESS because it satisfies Maynard Smith's second condition. D strategists may temporarily invade a population of C strategists by scoring equally well against C, but they pay a price when they begin to play against each other; C scores better against D than does D. So here although E(C, C) = E(D, C), it is also the case that E(C,D) > E(D,D). As a result, C is an ESS.
Even if a game has pure strategy Nash equilibria, it might be that none of those pure strategies are ESS. Consider the Game of chicken. There are two pure strategy Nash equilibria in this game (Swerve, Stay) and (Stay, Swerve). However, in the absence of an uncorrelated asymmetry, neither Swerve nor Stay are ESSes. There is a third Nash equilibrium, a mixed strategy which is an ESS for this game (see Hawk-dove game and Best response for explanation).
This last example points to an important difference between Nash equilibria and ESS. Nash equilibria are defined on strategy sets
(a specification of a strategy for each player), while ESS are defined
in terms of strategies themselves. The equilibria defined by ESS must
always be symmetric, and thus have fewer equilibrium points.
Vs. evolutionarily stable state
In population biology, the two concepts of an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) and an evolutionarily stable state are closely linked but describe different situations.
In an evolutionarily stable strategy, if all the members of a population adopt it, no mutant strategy can invade. Once virtually all members of the population use this strategy, there is no 'rational' alternative. ESS is part of classical game theory.
In an evolutionarily stable state, a population's genetic
composition is restored by selection after a disturbance, if the
disturbance is not too large. An evolutionarily stable state is a
dynamic property of a population that returns to using a strategy, or
mix of strategies, if it is perturbed from that initial state. It is
part of population genetics, dynamical system, or evolutionary game theory. This is now called convergent stability.
B. Thomas (1984) applies the term ESS to an individual strategy
which may be mixed, and evolutionarily stable population state to a
population mixture of pure strategies which may be formally equivalent
to the mixed ESS.
Whether a population is evolutionarily stable does not relate to its genetic diversity: it can be genetically monomorphic or polymorphic.
Stochastic ESS
In
the classic definition of an ESS, no mutant strategy can invade. In
finite populations, any mutant could in principle invade, albeit at low
probability, implying that no ESS can exist. In an infinite population,
an ESS can instead be defined as a strategy which, should it become
invaded by a new mutant strategy with probability p, would be able to
counterinvade from a single starting individual with probability >p,
as illustrated by the evolution of bet-hedging.
Prisoner's dilemma
Cooperate
Defect
Cooperate
3, 3
1, 4
Defect
4, 1
2, 2
Prisoner's Dilemma
A common model of altruism and social cooperation is the Prisoner's dilemma. Here a group of players would collectively be better off if they could play Cooperate, but since Defect fares better each individual player has an incentive to play Defect.
One solution to this problem is to introduce the possibility of
retaliation by having individuals play the game repeatedly against the
same player. In the so-called iterated
Prisoner's dilemma, the same two individuals play the prisoner's
dilemma over and over. While the Prisoner's dilemma has only two
strategies (Cooperate and Defect), the iterated Prisoner's
dilemma has a huge number of possible strategies. Since an individual
can have different contingency plan for each history and the game may be
repeated an indefinite number of times, there may in fact be an
infinite number of such contingency plans.
Three simple contingency plans which have received substantial attention are Always Defect, Always Cooperate, and Tit for Tat.
The first two strategies do the same thing regardless of the other
player's actions, while the latter responds on the next round by doing
what was done to it on the previous round—it responds to Cooperate with Cooperate and Defect with Defect.
If the entire population plays Tit-for-Tat and a mutant arises who plays Always Defect, Tit-for-Tat will outperform Always Defect. If the population of the mutant becomes too large — the percentage of the mutant will be kept small. Tit for Tat is therefore an ESS, with respect to only these two strategies. On the other hand, an island of Always Defect players will be stable against the invasion of a few Tit-for-Tat players, but not against a large number of them. If we introduce Always Cooperate, a population of Tit-for-Tat is no longer an ESS. Since a population of Tit-for-Tat players always cooperates, the strategy Always Cooperate behaves identically in this population. As a result, a mutant who plays Always Cooperate will not be eliminated. However, even though a population of Always Cooperate and Tit-for-Tat can coexist, if there is a small percentage of the population that is Always Defect, the selective pressure is against Always Cooperate, and in favour of Tit-for-Tat. This is due to the lower payoffs of cooperating than those of defecting in case the opponent defects.
This demonstrates the difficulties in applying the formal
definition of an ESS to games with large strategy spaces, and has
motivated some to consider alternatives.
Human behavior
The fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology attempt to explain animal and human behavior and social structures, largely in terms of evolutionarily stable strategies. Sociopathy (chronic antisocial or criminal behavior) may be a result of a combination of two such strategies.
Evolutionarily stable strategies were originally considered for
biological evolution, but they can apply to other contexts. In fact,
there are stable states for a large class of adaptive dynamics. As a result, they can be used to explain human behaviours that lack any genetic influences.
A demagogue (/ˈdɛməˌɡɒɡ/; from Ancient Greekδημαγωγός (dēmagōgós)'popular leader, mob leader'; from Ancient Greekδῆμος (dêmos)'people, populace' and ἀγωγός (agōgós)'leading, guiding') or rabble-rouser, is a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity. Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
Historian Reinhard Luthin defined demagogue
as "a politician skilled in oratory, flattery and invective; evasive in
discussing vital issues; promising everything to everybody; appealing
to the passions rather than the reason of the public; and arousing
racial, religious, and class prejudices—a man whose lust for power
without recourse to principle leads him to seek to become a master of
the masses. He has for centuries practiced his profession of 'man of the
people'. He is a product of a political tradition nearly as old as
western civilization itself."
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens.
Demagogues exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: Because
ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to
give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator
of a large segment of the population. Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, forceful action to address
a crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness
or disloyalty. Many demagogues elected to high executive office have
unraveled constitutional limits on executive power and tried to convert
their democracy into a dictatorship, sometimes successfully.
History and definition of the word
A demagogue, in the strict signification of the word, is a 'leader of the rabble'.
Demagogue, a term originally referring to a leader of the common people, was first coined in ancient Greece with no negative connotation, but eventually came to mean a troublesome kind of leader who occasionally arose in Athenian democracy. Even though democracy gave power to the common people, elections still
tended to favor the aristocratic class, which favored deliberation and
decorum. Demagogues were a new kind of leader who emerged from the lower
classes. Demagogues relentlessly advocated action, usually
violent—immediately and without deliberation.
The term "demagogue" has been used to disparage leaders perceived as manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted.
However, what distinguishes a demagogue can be defined independently of
whether the speaker favors or opposes a certain political leader.
A demagogue is defined by how they gain or hold democratic power: by
exciting the passions of the lower classes and less-educated people in a
democracy toward rash or violent action and breaking established
democratic institutions such as the rule of law.James Fenimore Cooper in 1838 identified four fundamental characteristics of demagogues:
They present themselves as a man or woman of the common people, opposed to the elites.
Their politics depends on a visceral connection with the people, which greatly exceeds ordinary political popularity.
They manipulate this connection, and the raging popularity it affords, for their own benefit and ambition.
They threaten or outright break established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law.
Their methods are known as demagoguery or demagogy. The central feature of demagoguery is persuasion by means of passion,
shutting down reasoned deliberation and consideration of alternatives.
While many politicians in a democracy make occasional small sacrifices
of truth, subtlety, or long-term concerns to maintain popular support,
demagogues do these things relentlessly and without self-restraint. Demagogues "pander to passion, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, rather than reason."
The Austrianphilosopher of language and political scientist Paul Sailer-Wlasits [de] differentiates between populism
and demagoguery, asserting that "[a] central aspect that distinguishes
populism from demagoguery is that demagogues in politics possess
substantial systemic power for mobilization, which poses a serious
threat to democracy." In political practice, he argues, a clear
indication of demagoguery is when "the person, the party, and the
political program merge, manifesting as over-identification and
over-personalization in a single leading figure."
History and characteristics of demagogues
In every age the vilest specimens of human nature are to be found among demagogues.
— Thomas Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II (1849)
Demagogues have risen to power in democracies from Athens to the
present day. While many demagogues have unique, colorful personalities,
the psychological tactics they use have been similar throughout history
(see below).
Often considered the first demagogue, Cleon of Athens
is remembered mainly for the brutality of his rule and his near
destruction of Athenian democracy, resulting from his "common-man"
appeal to disregard the moderate customs of the aristocratic elite. Modern demagogues include Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and Joseph McCarthy,
all of whom built mass followings the same way that Cleon did: by
exciting the passions of the masses against customs and norms of the
aristocratic elites of their times.All, ancient and modern, meet Cooper's four criteria above: claiming
to represent the common people, inciting intense passions among them,
exploiting those reactions to take power, and breaking or at least
threatening established rules of political conduct, though each in
different ways.
Demagogues have often exploited the lower classes and
less-educated people in society. While democracies are designed to
ensure freedom for all and popular control over government authority,
demagogues gain power by using popular support to undermine those same
freedoms and laws.The Greek historian Polybius
thought that democracies are inevitably undone by demagogues. He said
that every democracy eventually decays into "a government of violence
and the strong hand", leading to "tumultuous assemblies, massacres,
banishments".
While conventional wisdom positions democracy and fascism as
opposites, ancient political theorists understood that democracy had an
innate tendency to lead to an extreme populist government and provide
demagogues with an ideal opportunity to gain power. Ivo Mosley argued that totalitarian regimes may be the logical outcome of unfettered mass democracy.
Emotional oratory and personal charisma
Many demagogues have demonstrated remarkable skill at moving
audiences to great emotional depths and heights during a speech.
Sometimes this is due to exceptional verbal eloquence, sometimes
personal charisma, and sometimes both.
Hitler often began his speeches by speaking slowly, in a low,
resonant voice, telling of his life in poverty after serving in World
War I, suffering in the chaos and humiliation of postwar Germany, and
resolving to reawaken the Fatherland. Gradually, he would escalate the tone and tempo of his speech, ending
in a climax in which he shrieked his hatred of Bolsheviks, Jews, Czechs,
Poles, or whatever group he currently perceived as standing in his
way—mocking them, ridiculing them, insulting them, and threatening them
with destruction. Normally reasonable people became caught up in the
peculiar rapport that Hitler established with his audience, believing
even the most obvious lies and nonsense while under his spell. Hitler
was not born with these vocal and oratorical skills; he acquired them
through long and deliberate practice.
A more ordinary silver-tongued demagogue was the Negro-baiter James Kimble Vardaman
(Governor of Mississippi 1904–1908, Senator 1913–1919), admired even by
his opponents for his oratorical gifts and colorful language. An
example, responding to Theodore Roosevelt's having invited black people
to a reception at the White House: "Let Teddy take coons to the White
House. I should not care if the walls of the ancient edifice should
become so saturated with the effluvia from the rancid carcasses that a
Chinch bug would have to crawl upon the dome to avoid asphyxiation." Vardaman's speeches tended to have little content; he spoke in a
ceremonial style even in deliberative settings. His speeches served
mostly as a vehicle for his personal magnetism, charming voice, and
graceful delivery.
The demagogues' charisma and emotional oratory many times enabled them to win elections despite opposition from the press. The news media
informs voters, and often the information is damaging to demagogues.
Demagogic oratory distracts, entertains, and enthralls, steering
followers' attention away from the demagogue's usual history of lies,
abuses of power, and broken promises. The advent of radio enabled many 20th-century demagogues' skill with the spoken word to drown out the written word of newspapers.
Tactics
There are a number of common tactics demagogues have employed
throughout history to manipulate public sentiment and incite crowds. Not
all demagogues use all of these methods, and no two demagogues use
exactly the same methods to gain popularity and loyalty. Even ordinary
politicians use some of these techniques from time to time; a politician
who failed to stir emotions at all would have little hope of being
elected. What these techniques have in common, and what distinguishes
demagogues' use of them, is their consistent intent to prevent reasoned
deliberation by stirring up overwhelming passion.
In contrast to a demagogue, a politician's ordinary rhetoric
seeks "to calm rather than excite, to conciliate rather than divide, and
to instruct rather than flatter."
Scapegoating
The most fundamental demagogic technique is scapegoating: blaming the in-group's troubles on an out-group, usually of a different ethnicity, religion, or social class. For example, McCarthy claimed that all of the problems of the U.S. resulted from "communist subversion." Denis Kearney blamed all the problems of laborers in California on Chinese immigrants. Hitler blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I
as well as the economic troubles that came afterward. This was central
to his appeal: many people said that the only reason they liked Hitler
was because he was against the Jews. Fixing blame on the Jews gave
Hitler a way to intensify nationalism and unity.
The claims made about the scapegoated class are mostly the same
regardless of the demagogue and regardless of the scapegoated class or
the nature of the crisis that the demagogue is exploiting. "We" are the "true" Americans/Germans/Christians/etc., and "they",
the
Jews/bankers/communists/capitalists/unions/foreigners/elites/etc.,
have cheated "us" plain folk and are living in decadent luxury off
riches that rightfully belong to "us". "They" are plotting to take over,
are now rapidly taking power, or are already secretly running the
country. "They" are subhuman, sexual perverts who will seduce or rape
"our" daughters, and if "we" do not expel or exterminate "them" right
away, doom is just around the corner.
Fearmongering
Many demagogues have risen to power by evoking fear in their audiences, to stir them to action and prevent deliberation. Fear of rape, for example, is easily evoked. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman's rhetoric
was most vivid when he was describing imaginary scenes in which white
women were raped by black men lurking by the side of the road. He
depicted black men as having an innate "character weakness" consisting
of a fondness for raping white women. Tillman was elected governor of South Carolina in 1890, and elected senator repeatedly from 1895 to 1918.
After the September 11 attacks
in the United States, terrorism and national security became prominent
political issues. After Democrats lost control of the Congress in 2004,
former U.S. president Bill Clinton
opined: "When people are feeling insecure, they'd rather have someone
who is strong and wrong rather than somebody who is weak and right." The Clinton aphorism was later applied to describe why the political tactics of Donald Trump were successful, and how Democrats might do better in related elections.
Lying
Demagogues typically choose their words for their emotional effect on
the audience, often without regard for factual truth or for potential
danger. Demagogues are opportunistic, saying whatever will generate controversy
and spur public energy. Other demagogues may believe falsehoods they
tell.
If one lie does not work, a demagogue often adds more lies. Joseph McCarthy claimed to have a list of 205 members of the Communist Party working in the State Department. Then, he announced there were 57 "card-carrying Communists". When pressed for names, McCarthy said that records were not available
to him, but he knew "absolutely" that "approximately" 300 Communists
were certified to the Secretary of State for discharge but
"approximately" 80 were actually discharged. McCarthy never found a
Communist in the State Department.
Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty
Cleon of Athens,
like many demagogues who came after him, constantly advocated brutality
in order to demonstrate strength, and argued that compassion was a sign
of weakness that would only be exploited by enemies. "It is a general
rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well and
look up to those who make no concessions." At the Mytilenian Debate
over whether to recall the ships he had sent the previous day to
slaughter and enslave the entire population of Mytilene, he opposed the
very idea of debate, characterizing it as an idle, weak, intellectual
pleasure: "To feel pity, to be carried away by the pleasure of hearing a
clever argument, to listen to the claims of decency are three things
that are entirely against the interests of an imperial power."
Distracting from his lack of evidence for his claims, Joe
McCarthy persistently insinuated that anyone who opposed him was a
communist sympathizer. G.M. Gilbert summarized this rhetoric as "I'm
agin' Communism; you're agin' me; therefore you must be a communist."
Promising the impossible
Another fundamental demagogic technique is making promises only for
their emotional effect on audiences, without regard for how they might
be accomplished or without intending to honor them once in office. Demagogues express these empty promises simply and theatrically, but
remain extremely hazy about how they will achieve them because usually
they are impossible. For example, Huey Long
promised that if he were elected president, every family would have a
home, an automobile, a radio, and $2,000 yearly. He was vague about how
he would make that happen, but people still joined his Share-the-Wealth
clubs. Another kind of empty demagogic promise is to make everyone wealthy or "solve all the problems". The Polish demagogue Stanisław Tymiński,
running as an unknown "maverick" on the basis of his prior success as a
businessman in Canada, promised "immediate prosperity"—exploiting the
economic difficulties of laborers, especially miners and steelworkers.
Tymiński forced a runoff in the 1990 presidential election, nearly
defeating Lech Wałęsa.
Encouraging violence and using physical intimidation
Demagogues have often encouraged their supporters to violently
intimidate opponents, both to solidify loyalty among their supporters
and to discourage or physically prevent people from speaking out or
voting against them. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman was repeatedly re-elected
to the U.S. Senate largely through violence and intimidation. He spoke
in support of lynch mobs, and he disenfranchised most black voters with
the South Carolina constitution of 1895. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf
that physical intimidation was an effective way to move the masses.
Hitler intentionally provoked hecklers at his rallies so that his
supporters would become enraged by their remarks and assault them.
Personal insults and ridicule
Many demagogues have found that ridiculing or insulting opponents is a
simple way to shut down reasoned deliberation of competing ideas,
especially with an unsophisticated audience. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman,
for example, was a master of the personal insult. He got his nickname
from a speech in which he called President Grover Cleveland "an old bag of beef" and resolved to bring a pitchfork to Washington to "poke him in his old fat ribs." James Kimble Vardaman consistently referred to President Theodore Roosevelt as a "coon-flavored miscegenationist"
and once posted an ad in a newspaper for "sixteen big, fat, mellow,
rancid coons" to sleep with Roosevelt during a trip to Mississippi.
A common demagogic technique is to pin an insulting epithet
on an opponent, by saying it repeatedly, in speech after speech, when
saying the opponent's name or in place of it. For example, James Curley referred to Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., his Republican opponent for Senator, as "Little Boy Blue". William Hale Thompson called Anton Cermak, his opponent for mayor of Chicago, "Tony Baloney". Huey Long called Joseph E. Ransdell, his elderly opponent for Senator, "Old Feather Duster". Joe McCarthy liked to call Secretary of State Dean Acheson
"The Red Dean of Fashion". The use of epithets and other humorous
invective diverts followers' attention from soberly considering how to
address the important public issues of the time, scoring easy laughs
instead.
Exhibiting vulgarity and behaving outrageously
Legislative bodies usually have sober standards of decorum that are
intended to quiet passions and favor reasoned deliberation. Many
demagogues violate standards of decorum outrageously, to show clearly
that they are thumbing their noses at the established order and the
genteel ways of the upper class, or simply because they enjoy the
attention that it brings. The common people might find the demagogue
disgusting, but the demagogue can use the upper class's contempt for him
to show that he will not be shamed or intimidated by the powerful.
For example, Huey Long famously wore pajamas to highly dignified occasions where others were dressed at the height of formality. He once stood "bukk nekkid" at his hotel suite when laying down the law to a meeting of political fuglemen. Long was "intensely and solely interested in himself. He had to
dominate every scene he was in and every person around him. He craved
attention and would go to almost any length to get it. He knew that an
audacious action, although it was harsh and even barbarous, could shock
people into a state where they could be manipulated." He was "...so shameless in his pursuit of publicity, and so adept at
getting press coverage, that he was soon attracting more attention from
the press and the galleries than most of the rest of his colleagues
combined."
In ancient Greece, Aristotle
pointed out the bad manners of Cleon more than 2,000 years ago:
"[Cleon] was the first who shouted on the public platform, who used
abusive language and who spoke with his cloak girt about him, while all
the others used to speak in proper dress and manner."
Folksy posturing
Demagogues often make a show of appearing to be down-to-earth,
ordinary citizens just like the people whose votes they seek. In the
United States, many took folksy nicknames: William H. Murray (1869–1956) was "Alfalfa Bill"; James M. Curley (1874–1958) of Boston was "Our Jim"; Ellison D. Smith (1864–1944) was "Cotton Ed"; the husband-and-wife demagogue team of Miriam and James E. Ferguson went by "Ma and Pa"; Texas governor W. Lee O'Daniel (1890–1969) was "Pappy-Pass-the-Biscuits".
Georgia governor Eugene Talmadge
(1884–1946) put a barn and a henhouse on the executive mansion grounds,
loudly explaining that he could not sleep nights unless he heard the
bellowing of livestock and the cackling of poultry.
When in the presence of farmers, he chewed tobacco and faked a rural
accent—though he himself was college-educated—railing against "frills"
and "nigger-lovin' furriners". Talamadge defined "furriner"
as "Anyone who attempts to impose ideas that are contrary to the
established traditions of Georgia." His grammar and vocabulary became
more refined when speaking before an urban audience.Talmadge was famous for wearing gaudy red galluses, which he snapped for emphasis during his speeches. On his desk, he kept three books that he loudly told visitors were all that a governor needed: a bible, the state financial report, and a Sears–Roebuck catalog.
Huey Long emphasized his humble roots by calling himself "The Kingfish" and gulping down pot likker when visiting northern Louisiana. He once issued a press release demanding that his name be removed from the Washington Social Register.
"Alfalfa Bill" made sure to remind people of his rural background by
talking in the terminology of farming: "I will plow straight furrows and
blast all the stumps. The common people and I can lick the whole lousy
gang."
Making gross oversimplification
Demagogues commonly treat complex problems, which require patient
reasoning and analysis, as if they result from one simple cause or can
be solved by one simple cure. For example, Huey Long claimed that all of
the U.S.'s economic problems could be solved just by "sharing the wealth". Hitler claimed that Germany had lost World War I only because of a "Stab in the Back".Scapegoating (above) is one form of gross oversimplification.
Attacking the news media
Because factual information reported by the press can undermine a
demagogue's claims and standing among followers, modern demagogues have
attacked the press intemperately. At times, demagogues have called for
violence against newspapers who opposed them. Some have claimed that the
press was acting secretly in the service of moneyed interests or
foreign powers or that newspapers had a personal vendetta against them.
Huey Long accused the New Orleans Times–Picayune and Item of being "bought", and had his bodyguards rough up their reporters. Oklahoma governor "Alfalfa Bill" Murray (1869–1956) once called for a bomb to be dropped on the offices of the Daily Oklahoman. Joe McCarthy accused The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Post, The New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, The Washington Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and other leading American newspapers of being "Communist smear sheets" under the control of the Kremlin.
Actions in power
The shortest way to ruin a country is to give power to demagogues.
Establishing one-man rule, subverting the rule of law
In executive office, demagogues have often moved quickly to expand their power, both de jure and de facto:
by getting legislation passed to officially expand their authority, and
by building up networks of corruption and informal pressure to ensure
that their dictates are followed regardless of constitutional authority.
For example, within two months of being appointed chancellor, Hitler unraveled all constitutional limitations on his power. He achieved this through near-daily acts of chaos, destabilizing the
state and providing ever stronger reasons to justify taking more power.
Hitler was appointed on January 30, 1933; on February 1, the Reichstag was dissolved; on February 27, the Reichstag building burned; on February 28, the Reichstag Fire Decree gave Hitler emergency powers and suspended civil liberties; on March 5, new general elections were held; on March 22, the first concentration camp opened, taking political prisoners. On March 24, the Enabling Act
was passed, giving Hitler full legislative powers, thus ending all
constitutional restraint and making Hitler absolute dictator.
Consolidation of power continued even after that; see Early timeline of Nazism.
Even local demagogues have established one-man rule, or a near approximation of it, over their constituencies. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray, a demagogue who was elected governor of Oklahoma by appealing to poor rural animosity toward "craven wolves of plutocracy", promised to "make an open season on millionaires."
Despite having presided over Oklahoma's constitutional convention,
Murray routinely violated the constitution, ruling by executive order
whenever the legislature or the courts got in his way. When federal
courts ruled against him, he prevailed by relying on the National Guard,
even donning a military hat and pistol and personally commanding the
troops—and seeing to it that the confrontation was filmed by movie
cameras.
Murray attempted to expand gubernatorial powers with a set of four
initiatives, replacing existing income-tax law with his own, giving him
power to appoint all members of the board of education, acquiring
corporation-owned land, and giving him extraordinary power over the
budget, but these were defeated.
Appointing unqualified lackeys to high office
Demagogues often appoint people to high office based on personal
loyalty without regard to competence for the office—opening up
extraordinary avenues for graft and corruption. During "Alfalfa Bill"
Murray's campaign for governor, he promised to crack down on corruption
and favoritism for the rich, to abolish half the clerk jobs at the State
House, to appoint no family members, to reduce the number of
state-owned cars from 800 to 200, never to use convict labor to compete
with commercial labor, and not to abuse the power of pardon. Once in
office, he appointed wealthy patrons and 20 of his relatives to high
office, purchased more cars, used prisoners to make ice for sale and
clean the capitol building, and violated all the other promises. When
the State Auditor pointed out that 1,050 new employees had been added to
the state payroll, Murray simply said, "Just damned lies."For each abuse of power, Murray claimed a mandate from "the sovereign will of the people".
Famous historical demagogues
Ancient history
Cleon (died 422 BC)
The Athenian leader Cleon is often cited as a demagogue because of three events described in the writings of Thucydides and Aristophanes.
First, after a failed revolt by the city of Mytilene,
Cleon persuaded the Athenians to slaughter not just the Mytilenean
prisoners, but every man in the city, and to sell their wives and
children as slaves. The Athenians rescinded the resolution the following
day when they came to their senses.
Second, after Athens had completely defeated the Peloponnesian fleet in the Battle of Sphacteria and Sparta could only beg for peace on almost any terms, Cleon persuaded the Athenians to reject the peace offer.
Third, he taunted the Athenian generals over their failure to
bring the war in Sphacteria to a rapid close, accusing them of
cowardice, and declared that he could finish the job himself in 20 days,
despite having no military knowledge. They gave him the job, expecting
him to fail. Cleon shrank at being called to make good on his boast, and
tried to get out of it, but he was forced to take the command. In fact,
he succeeded—by getting the general Demosthenes
to do it, now treating him with respect after previously slandering him
behind his back. Three years later, Cleon and his Spartan counterpart Brasidas were killed at the Battle of Amphipolis, enabling a restoration of peace that lasted until the outbreak of the Second Peloponnesian War.
Modern commentators suspect that Thucydides and Aristophanes
exaggerated the vileness of Cleon's real character. Both had personal
conflicts with Cleon, and The Knights
is a satirical, allegorical comedy that does not even mention Cleon by
name. Cleon was a tradesman—a leather-tanner. Thucydides and
Aristophanes came from the upper classes, predisposed to look down on
the commercial classes. Nevertheless, their portrayals define the
archetypal example of the "demagogue" or "rabble-rouser".
Alcibiades (c.450–404 BC)
Alcibiades convinced the people of Athens to attempt to conquer Sicily during the Peloponnesian War, with disastrous results. He led the Athenian assembly
to support making him commander by claiming victory would come easily,
appealing to Athenian vanity, and appealing to action and courage over
deliberation. Alcibiades's expedition might have succeeded if he had not
been denied command by the political maneuvers of his rivals.
Gaius Flaminius (c. 275–217 BC)
Gaius Flaminius was a Roman consul most known for being defeated by Hannibal at the Battle of Lake Trasimene during the second Punic war. Hannibal
was able to make pivotal decisions during this battle because he
understood his opponent. Flaminius was described as a demagogue by Polybius, in his book The Histories "...Flaminius possessed a rare talent for the arts of demagogy..." Because Flaminius was thus ill-suited, he lost 15,000 Roman lives, his own included, in the battle.
The most famous demagogue of modern history, Adolf Hitler, first attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government not with popular support but by force in a failed putsch in 1923. While in prison, Hitler chose a new strategy: to overthrow the government democratically, by cultivating a mass movement. Even before the putsch, Hitler had rewritten the Nazi party's
platform to consciously appeal to the lower classes of Germany,
appealing to their resentment of wealthier classes and calling for
German unity and increased central power. Hitler was delighted by the instant increase in popularity.
While Hitler was in prison, the Nazi party vote had fallen to one
million, and it continued to fall after Hitler was released in 1924 and
began rejuvenating the party. For the next several years, Hitler and
the Nazi party were generally regarded as a laughingstock in Germany, no
longer taken seriously as a threat to the country. The prime minister
of Bavaria lifted the region's ban on the party, saying, "The wild beast
is checked. We can afford to loosen the chain."
In 1929, with the start of the Great Depression, Hitler's populism
started to become effective. Hitler updated the Nazi party's platform
to exploit the economic distress of ordinary Germans: repudiating the Versailles Treaty,
promising to eliminate corruption, and pledging to provide every German
with a job. In 1930, the Nazi party went from 200,000 votes to 6.4
million, making it the second-largest party in Parliament. By 1932, the
Nazi party had become the largest in Parliament. In early 1933, Hitler
was appointed Chancellor. He then exploited the Reichstag fire to arrest his political opponents and consolidate his control of the army. Within a few years, enjoying democratic support from the masses, Hitler took Germany from a democracy to a total dictatorship.
Huey Long, nicknamed "The Kingfish", was an American politician who served as the 40th governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as a member of the United States Senate from 1932 until his assassination in 1935. He was a populist member of the Democratic Party and rose to national prominence during the Great Depression for his vocal criticism from the left of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. As the political leader of Louisiana,
he commanded wide networks of supporters and often took forceful
action. A controversial figure, Long is celebrated as a populist
benefactor or conversely denounced as a fascist demagogue.
In 1928, before Long was sworn in as governor of Louisiana, he
was already supervising political appointments to ensure a loyal
majority for all his initiatives. As governor, he ousted public officers
not personally loyal to him and took control away from state
commissions to ensure that all contracts would be awarded to people in
his political machine.
In a confrontation over natural gas with managers of the Public Service
Corporation, he told them, truthfully, "A deck has 52 cards and in
Baton Rouge I hold all 52 of them and I can shuffle and deal as I
please. I can have bills passed or I can kill them. I'll give you until
Saturday to decide." They yielded to Long—and became part of his
ever-expanding machine.
When Long became a senator in 1932, his enemy, the lieutenant governor Paul N. Cyr,
was sworn in as governor. Long, without authority, ordered state
troopers to surround the executive mansion and arrest Cyr as an
imposter. Long installed his ally Alvin O. King as governor, later replaced by O.K. Allen,
serving as stooges for Long. Thus even in Washington, with no official
authority, Long retained dictatorial control over Louisiana. When the
Mayor of New Orleans, T. Semmes Walmsley,
began to oppose Long's extraordinary power over the state, Long
exploited a subservient judge to justify making an armed attack on the
basis of cracking down on racketeering. At Long's order, Governor Allen
declared martial law and dispatched National Guardsmen to seize the
Registrar of Voters, allegedly "to prevent election frauds". Then, by
stuffing ballot boxes, Long ensured victory for his candidates to
Congress. Long's own racketeering operation then grew. With his "trained
seal" legislature, armed militias, taxation used as a political weapon,
control over elections, and weakened court authority to limit his
power, Huey Long maintained control in Louisiana in a manner arguably
comparable to that of a dictator.
Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957. Though a poor orator, McCarthy rose to national prominence during the early 1950s by
proclaiming that high places in the United States federal government and
military were "infested" with communists, contributing to the second "Red Scare". Ultimately, his inability to provide proof for his claims, as well as his public attacks on the United States Army, led to the Army–McCarthy hearings in 1954, which in turn led to his censure by the Senate and fall from popularity.
Donald Trump
Multiple sources have described Donald Trump as a demagogue.
Positive demagoguery
Tactical demagoguery
Some scholars have challenged the consensus that demagoguery is necessarily a bad form of leadership and rhetoric. In Demagogues in American Politics,
for example, Charles U. Zug argues that demagoguery can be legitimate
and even good if integrated into a broader strategy for political reform
and if coupled with a robust rationale for political change. Zug contrasts classical or traditional approaches to demagoguery, which
assume that demagogues are motivated by vicious intentions (such as an
unrestrained desire for power), with a modern approach that focuses on
the external words and deeds that demagogues use to advance political
goals. Relatedly, as Princeton Classicist Melissa Lane has argued, in pre-Socratic
antiquity demagogues were originally viewed as neither inherently good
nor inherently bad, but rather as advocates for the common people (as
opposed to the oligarchs). Zug has argued that conceiving of demagoguery as an inherently negative
practice incentivizes political actors to weaponize the label
"demagogue"; as a consequence, otherwise innocent victims—such as the
supposed leader of Shays' Rebellion, Daniel Shays—can be inaccurately branded as vicious, unscrupulous leaders.
Demagoguery in constitutional office
Zug also argues that demagoguery takes on different meanings when
deployed by public officials in different institutions; for example,
American federal judges should be scrutinized more carefully for using
demagoguery than should legislators, since the act of judging well—i.e.,
adjudicating legal disputes—does not require direct appeals to the
public. In contrast, being an effective member of Congress
requires advocating for a constituency and getting (re)elected; and
these responsibilities in turn require direct public appeals, and
sometimes, demagoguery.
The arts of the sophists were known as sophistry and gained a negative reputation as tools of arbitrary reasoning. Protagoras, regarded as the first of the sophists, became notorious for his claim to "make the weaker argument the stronger".
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are used disparagingly. Sophistry, or a sophism, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but deceptive or intellectually dishonest arguments.[4][5]
Etymology
The Greek word σοφός, sophos, 'a wise man' is related to the nounσοφία, sophia, 'wisdom'. Since the times of Homer, it commonly referred to an expert in his profession or craft. Charioteers, sculptors, or military experts could be referred to as sophoi
in their occupations. The word has gradually come to connote general
wisdom and especially wisdom in human affairs such as politics, ethics,
and household management. This was the meaning ascribed to the Greek Seven Sages of 7th and 6th century BC (such as Solon and Thales), and it was the meaning that appears in the histories of Herodotus.
The word σοφός gives rise to the verbσοφίζω, sophizo, 'to instruct / make learned', the passive voice of which means "to become or be wise", or "to be clever or skilled". From the verb is derived the noun σοφιστής, sophistes, which originally meant "a master of one's craft" and later "a prudent man" or "wise man". The word for "sophist" in various languages comes from sophistes.
The word "sophist" could be combined with other Greek words to form compounds. Examples include meteorosophist, which roughly translates to "expert in celestial phenomena"; gymnosophist (or "naked sophist", a word used to refer to Indian philosophers), deipnosophist or "dinner sophist" (as in the title of Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae), and iatrosophist, a type of physician in the later Roman period.
History
In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly in Athens,
"sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who
taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of
language and culture, and employed rhetoric
to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others.
Nicholas Denyer observes that the Sophists "did ... have one important
thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they
characteristically had a great understanding of what words would
entertain or impress or persuade an audience." Sophists went to Athens to teach because the city was flourishing at
the time. It was good employment for those good at debate, which was a
speciality of the first sophists, and they received the fame and fortune
they were seeking. Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of these professional sophists. Others include Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus.
A few sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all
questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the
writings of their opponents (particularly Plato and Aristotle),
which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their
practices and teachings. In some cases, such as Gorgias, original
rhetorical works are extant, allowing the author to be judged on his own
terms, but in most cases, knowledge about what individual sophists
wrote or said comes from fragmentary quotations that lack context and
are usually hostile.
The Greeks were "experimenting with a new form of government,
democracy" (W. Keith, 5). Therefore, they were navigating how to make
decisions without a higher authority. They needed to create laws based
on demand and popular vote of the people. Back in the fifth century they
did not have mass media, printing presses, and barely any texts. They
mostly relied on speech. This meant that "the Athenians needed a
strategy for effectively talking to other people in juries, in forums,
and in the senate" (W. Keith, 5). This is when the sophist began to come
about. Originally known as Sicilians, they began to teach Athenians how
to speak in a persuasive manner in order to work with the courts and
senate. It is not really known how these Sicilians, who came to be
Sophists, initially grew an interest to teach others how to speak
persuasively. However, the interest in receiving training from the
Sophists increased.
(The Origins of Rhetoric Keith & Lundberg)
Sophists could be described both as teachers and philosophers,
having travelled about in Greece teaching their students various life
skills, particularly rhetoric and public speaking. These were useful
qualities of the time, during which persuasive ability had a large
influence on one's political power and economic wealth. Athens became
the center of the sophists' activity, due to the city's freedom of
speech for non-slave citizens and its wealth of resources. The sophists
as a group had no set teachings, and they lectured on subjects that were
as diverse as semantics and rhetoric, to ontology, and epistemology. Most sophists claimed to teach arete
("excellence" or "virtue") in the management and administration of not
only one's affairs, but the city's as well. Before the 5th century BC,
it was believed that aristocratic birth qualified a person for arete and
politics. However, Protagoras, who is regarded as the first sophist,
argued that arete was the result of training rather than birth.
Major figures
Most
of what is known about sophists comes from commentaries from others. In
some cases, such as Gorgias, some of his works survive, allowing the
author to be judged on his own terms. In one case, the Dissoi logoi,
an important sophist text survived but knowledge of its author has been
lost. However, most knowledge of sophist thought comes from fragmentary
quotations that lack context. Many of these quotations come from Aristotle, who seems to have held the sophists in slight regard.
Protagoras was one of the best known and most successful sophists of his era; however, some later philosophers, such as Sextus Empiricus treat him as a founder of a philosophy rather than as a sophist.
Protagoras taught his students the necessary skills and knowledge for a
successful life, particularly in politics. He trained his pupils to
argue from both points of view because he believed that truth could not
be limited to just one side of the argument. Protagoras wrote about a
variety of subjects and advanced several philosophical ideas,
particularly in epistemology.
Some fragments of his works have survived. He is the author of the
famous saying, "Man is the measure of all things", which is the opening
sentence of a work called Truth.
Xeniades was a skeptical philosopher from Corinth, probably a follower of the pre-Socratic Xenophanes. There may have been two such persons, as he is referenced by Democritus c. 400 BC, though he was also supposedly the purchaser of Diogenes the Cynic c. 350 BC, when he was captured by pirates and sold as a slave. Xeniades was supposed to have been the man who persuaded Monimus to become a follower of Diogenes, and was the source of his skeptical doctrines. The little that is known of him is derived from Sextus Empiricus, who represents him as holding the most ultrasceptical opinions, and maintaining that all notions are false, and that there is absolutely nothing true in the universe. He more than once couples him with Xenophanes.
Gorgias was a well-known sophist whose writings showcased his ability
to make counter-intuitive and unpopular positions appear stronger.
Gorgias authored a lost work known as On the Non-Existent, which argues that nothing exists. In it, he attempts to persuade his readers that thought and existence are different. He also wrote Encomium of Helen in which he presents all of the possible reasons for which Helen could be blamed for causing the Trojan War and refutes each one of them.
Lycophron is mentioned as a sophist by Aristotle, and was probably among the students of Gorgias. He rejected the supposed value of an aristocratic birth, claiming that "Now the nobility of good birth is obscure, and its grandeur a matter of words." meaning that there is no factual difference between those well-born and
those low-born; only words and opinion assign value to these different
circumstances of birth. This statement may indicate that Lycophron shared the beliefs of Antiphon, that (regardless of their ancestry) both Greeks and barbarians are born with the same capacities: An egalitarian belief that was a minority view in the 5th century BC.He is also known for his statement (reproduced by Aristotle, in the latter's Politics, 1280b10), that "law is only a convention, a surety to another of justice", also translated as "a guarantor of men's rights against one another". He, thus, believed that law is a matter of agreement, a social convention
and not a natural or universal standard (there is no evidence that
Lycophron rejected the idea that law is a universal standard – indeed
his view appears far more universalist than that of Aristotle, in that
Lycophron proposes a single standard, what would now be called the non
aggression principle, in relation to all states). In this respect his
views on law are similar to those of Protagoras. This means that he treats law as a mere means, in the context of a (perhaps primitive) social contract theory, without considering it as something special, in contradistinction to, e.g., Plato but similar to both Thrasymachus and Callicles,
albeit that their theories have – as far as can be ascertained from the
information available about them – more specific characteristics.
Criticism
Socrates was lampooned by Aristophanes in The Clouds as a pedantic wordsmith who lived in a basket. Later philosophers such as Plato and Xenophon sought to distinguish Socrates' ethical teachings from this comic portrayal of a sophist.
Many sophists taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance
of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners
often commanded very high fees. The sophists' practice of questioning
the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into
the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction
against them. As there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist, he was among the targets (which prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon). For example, in the comic play The Clouds, Aristophanes criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, and makes Socrates their representative. Such criticism, coupled with the wealth garnered by many sophist
practitioners, eventually led to popular resentment against sophists and
the ideas and writings associated with sophism.
Aristophanes
The comic playwright Aristophanes,
a contemporary of the sophists, criticized the sophists as
hairsplitting wordsmiths. Aristophanes, however, made no distinction
between sophists and philosophers, and showed either of them as willing
to argue any position for the right fee. In Aristophanes's comedic play The Clouds,
Strepsiades seeks the help of Socrates (a parody of the actual
philosopher) in an effort to avoid paying his debts. In the play,
Socrates promises to teach Strepsiades' son to argue his way out of
paying his debts.
Socrates
An ongoing debate is centered on the difference between the sophists, who charged for their services, and Socrates, who did not. Instead of giving instruction Socrates professed a self-effacing and questioning posture, exemplified by what is known as the Socratic method (although Diogenes Laërtius wrote that Protagoras, a sophist, invented this method).
Socrates' attitude towards the sophists was not entirely oppositional.
In one dialogue Socrates even stated that the sophists were better
educators than he was, which he validated by sending one of his students to study under a sophist. W. K. C. Guthrie classified Socrates as a sophist in his History of Greek Philosophy.
Isocrates, one of the later sophists, was critical of the education practices of his predecessors
Isocrates
One of the few speeches that have survived from ancient Greece is Isocrates' Against the Sophists. The speech offers scathing criticisms against sophist teachers and their failures.
While a sophist himself, Isocrates sought to distinguish his
school's pedagogical focus from other sophistic teachings. In
particular, Isocrates wanted to establish an institution that educated
Athenian students in a manner that would promote the success of Athenian
democracy. By developing a school in Athens around 392 BC,
approximately five years after Plato opened his Platonic Academy, Isocrates gave sophism more credibility in society.
Plato
As only small portions of the sophists' writings have survived they are mainly known through the works of Plato.
Plato's dialogues present a generally hostile view on the sophists'
thought, which is largely responsible for the modern view of the sophist
as an avaricious instructor that teaches deception.
Before Plato, the word "sophist" could be used as either a respectful or contemptuous title. It was in Plato's dialogue, Sophist,
that the first record of an attempt to answer the question "what is a
sophist?" is made. Plato described sophists as paid hunters after the
young and wealthy, as merchants of knowledge, as athletes in a contest
of words, and purgers of souls. From Plato's assessment of sophists it
could be concluded that sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only
an opinion of things. Plato describes them as shadows of the true,
saying, "the art of contradiction making, descended from an insincere
kind of conceited mimicry, of the semblance-making breed, derived from
image making, distinguished as portion, not divine but human, of
production, that presents, a shadow play of words—such are the blood and
the lineage which can, with perfect truth, be assigned to the authentic
sophist". Plato sought to distinguish sophists from philosophers,
arguing that a sophist was a person who made his living through
deception, whereas a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought the
truth. To give the philosophers greater credence, Plato gave the
sophists a negative connotation.
Plato
depicts Socrates as refuting sophists in several dialogues. These texts
often depict the sophists in an unflattering light, and it is unclear
how accurate or fair Plato's representation of them may be; however,
Protagoras and Prodicus are portrayed in a largely positive light in Protagoras. Protagoras argued that "man is the measure of all things", meaning man decides for himself what he is going to believe. The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern
view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical
sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to
support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned
with truth and justice, but instead seeks power.
Some scholars, such as Ugo Zilioli argue that the sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. However, this may involve the Greek word "doxa", which means "culturally shared belief" rather than "individual opinion". The sophists' philosophy contains criticisms of religion, law, and ethics. Although many sophists were apparently as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views (for example, Protagoras and Diagoras of Melos).
Influence
Few
writings from and about the first sophists survive. The early sophists
charged money in exchange for education and providing wisdom, and so
were typically employed by wealthy people. This practice resulted in the
condemnations made by Plato through Socrates in his dialogues, as well as by Xenophon in his Memorabilia and, somewhat controversially, by Aristotle. As a paid tutor to Alexander the Great, Aristotle could be accused of being a sophist. Aristotle did not actually accept payment from Philip, Alexander's father, but requested that Philip reconstruct Aristotle's home town of Stageira as payment, which Philip had destroyed in a previous campaign, terms which Philip accepted. James A. Herrick wrote: "In De Oratore, Cicero blames Plato for separating wisdom and eloquence in the philosopher's famous attack on the sophists in Gorgias." Through works such as these, sophists were portrayed as "specious" or "deceptive", hence the modern meaning of the term.
Democracy
The
sophists' rhetorical techniques were useful for any young nobleman
seeking public office. The societal roles the sophists filled had
important ramifications for the Athenian political system. The
historical context provides evidence for their considerable influence,
as Athens became more and more democratic during the period in which the
sophists were most active.
Even though Athens was already a flourishing democracy before
their arrival, the cultural and psychological contributions of the
sophists played an important role in the growth of Athenian democracy.
Sophists contributed to the new democracy in part by espousing expertise
in public deliberation, the foundation of decision-making, which
allowed—and perhaps required—a tolerance of the beliefs of others. This
liberal attitude would naturally have made its way into the Athenian
assembly as sophists began acquiring increasingly high-powered clients. Continuous rhetorical training gave the citizens of Athens "the ability
to create accounts of communal possibilities through persuasive
speech". This was important for the democracy, as it gave disparate and
sometimes superficially unattractive views a chance to be heard in the
Athenian assembly.
In addition, sophists had a great impact on the early development of law,
as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as
lawyers was a result of their highly developed skills in argument.
Education
Athens
The
sophists were the first formal teachers of the art of speaking and
writing in the Western world. Their influence on education in general,
and medical education in particular, has been described by Seamus Mac
Suibhne. The sophists "offer quite a different epistemic field from that mapped by Aristotle", according to scholar Susan Jarratt, writer of Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured.
For the sophists, the science of eloquence became a method to
earn money. In order to teach their students the art of persuasion and
demonstrate their thoughts, they focused on two techniques: dialectics and rhetoric.
The sophists taught their students two main techniques: the usage of
sophisms and contradictions. These means distinguished the speeches of
the sophists from the other speakers. Contradictions (antithesis )
were important to the Sophists because they believed that a good
rhetorician should be able to defend both his own opinion and the exact
opposite one. In this way, was developed the ability to find clear,
convincing arguments for any thesis. For the sophists, the primary
purpose was to win the dispute in order to prove their excellence in
word usage. They were convinced that there was no verity, but there were
different opinions, equal in importance, and the "verity" was the only
one that would be more convincingly demonstrated by the rhetorician.
Sophists were not limited in their speeches only to topics in
which they were aware. For them, there were no topics they could not
dispute, because their skill reached such a level that they were able to
talk about completely unknown things to them and still impress upon
listeners and the opponent. The main purpose was to pick an approach to
the audience, to please it and to adapt the speech to it. Unlike Plato's
approach, the Sophist rhetoricians did not focus on identifying the
truth, but the most important thing for them was to prove their case.
The first sophist whose speeches are a perfect example of a
sophisticated approach is Gorgias. One of his most famous speeches is
the "Praise of Helen", which has made a significant contribution to
rhetorical art. In this speech, Gorgias aims to make something almost
impossible – to justify Helen, about whom the people have already had a
negative opinion. By methods of double oppositions, stringing of
repetitive positive qualities and insightful consistent arguments,
Gorgias gradually purifies the poor reputation of a woman. Later, Aristotle
described the means used in Gorgias' speech as "Gorgias figures". All
of these figures create the most accessible path for the audience to the
argument offered, varying depending on the type of speech and audience.
Rome
The classical tradition of rhetoric and composition refers more to philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian than to the sophists. Owing largely to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, philosophy
came to be regarded as distinct from sophistry, the latter being
regarded as specious and rhetorical, a practical discipline. Thus, by
the time of the Roman Empire, a sophist was simply a teacher of rhetoric and a popular public speaker. For instance, Libanius, Himerius, Aelius Aristides, and Fronto were sophists in this sense. However, despite the opposition from philosophers Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle, it is clear that sophists had a vast influence on a number of
spheres, including the growth of knowledge and on ethical-political
theory. Their teachings had a huge influence on thought in the 5th
century BC. The sophists focused on the rational examination of human affairs and
the betterment and success of human life. They argued that gods could
not be the explanation of human action.
Many rhetoricians during this period were instructed under
specialists in Greek rhetorical studies as part of their standard
education. Cicero,
a prominent rhetorician during this period in Roman history, is one
such example of the influence of the Second Sophistic on Roman
education. His early life coincided with the suppression of Latin
rhetoric in Roman education under the edicts of Crassus
and Domitius. Cicero was instructed in Greek rhetoric throughout his
youth, as well as in other subjects of the Roman rubric under Archias.
Cicero benefited in his early education from favorable ties to Crassus.
In his writings, Cicero is said to have shown a "synthesis that
he achieved between Greek and Roman culture" summed up in his work De Oratore. Despite
his oratorical skill, Cicero pressed for a more liberal education in
Roman instruction which focused more in the broad sciences including
Roman history. He entitled this set of sciences as politior humanitas
(2.72). Regardless of his efforts toward this end, Greek history was
still preferred by the majority of aristocratic Romans during this time.
From the late 1st century CE the Second Sophistic,
a philosophical and rhetorical movement, was the chief expression of
intellectual life. The term "Second Sophistic" comes from Philostratus,
who, rejecting the term "New Sophistic", traced the beginnings of the
movement to the orator Aeschines in the 4th century BC. But its earliest
representative was really Nicetes of Smyrna,
in the late 1st century CE. Unlike the original Sophistic movement of
the 5th century BC, the Second Sophistic was little concerned with politics. But it was, to a large degree, to meet the everyday needs and respond to the practical problems of Greco-Roman society. It came to dominate higher education and left its mark on many forms of literature. Lucian, himself a writer of the Second Sophistic, even calls Jesus "that crucified sophist".
During the Second Sophistic,
the Greek discipline of rhetoric heavily influenced Roman education.
During this time Latin rhetorical studies were banned for the precedent
of Greek rhetorical studies. In addition, Greek history was preferred
for educating the Roman elites above that of their native Roman history.
