Search

How was discrimination between citizens and non-citizens in the democratic Athens perceived and justified? The author addresses the question starting from the analysis of Aristotle’s theses. The justification for the exclusion of women, slaves and metics rests on different foundations. The subordination of women is based on their supposed natural inferiority. Their incapacity for self-determination reflects the passive role they play in the reproductive process, according to Aristotle. In the case of slaves, the problem is more complex. In the absence of obvious physiological differences, the Aristotelian demonstration of the existence of «slaves by nature» encounters many difficulties. But it is above all the figure of the metic, the resident foreigner, who raises problems. Excluded from the polis, understood as a political community, the metics are not simply part of the «private» sphere of the oikos, like women and slaves. In the Athenian world, they lived together with citizens and interacted with them as equals. It was certainly not possible to theorize their natural inferiority. Thus, during the course of the fifth century, myths of autochthony flourish, portraying the Athenians as the only legitimate «sons» of the Attic land. Aristotle, however, is not satisfied with these narratives and explicitly criticizes the criterion of ius sanguinis. In his eyes, the choice to widen or narrow the boundaries of citizenship is eminently political, and dictated by contingent and opportunistic reasons. Similarly today, the exclusion of growing masses of «new metics» is justified by romantic legends about the nations (the modern version of ancient myths of autochthony), or through the argument of «the excessive number of citizens». In any case, the discrimination between natives and foreigners in the ownership of rights is in contradiction with the «Copernican revolution of modernity» (N. Bobbio) and with the principles of democracy.