“Riots over bread prices in Roman Empire touch the foundation of survival”
How were politics practiced in classical antiquity? And what can we learn from that about the electoral victory of the political party BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB)? That’s what the professor of Ancient History Daniëlle Slootjes is here to talk about. “Part of the success of the Roman Empire is that people at the local level needed Rome very little.”
No army could stand up to a popular revolt. Emperors in the Roman Empire knew that all too well, ruling a city like Rome with more than a million inhabitants. Yet an individual’s voice only counts when it is part of a collective. UvA professor of ancient history Daniëlle Slootjes sees examples of this in classical antiquity and in the election victory of the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB).
Slootjes researches the mass behavior of people in classical antiquity. In doing so, she tries to break “artificial” geographical and chronological boundaries between the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. “The political systems differ by time and place, but the behavior of the masses shows great similarities.”
Do you see similarities between the behavior of the masses in classical antiquity and today?
“Working class protests are an excellent example of how people unite. There you see that an individual’s voice only gets heard when people start organizing collectively, choose slogans, and stand up for a cause. That can create momentum that can get you support from other groups in society, from individuals who would not immediately make an effort on your behalf because of their own interests or position in society.”
“The same thing happened, for example, in the fourth and fifth centuries AD in Rome. Riots arose with some regularity at the time because people were extremely dissatisfied with bread prices, which affected their foundation of survival. You can see the same thing now with the working class protests and the banners in the fields: ‘No working class, no food.’ The moment people experience injustice on a fundamental level, people with different identities also start to feel affected. When people with different identities start uniting, you can create momentum. If one person shouts, nothing happens. It’s all about the second and the third person. Then you can start building a collective. And you need a leader of some kind, to put it plainly.”
Was there a party in classical antiquity that spoke out for the people?
“You do see a contrast between optimists – people from the rich Roman families and the populares – interpreted by some as populists in the Roman Republic, the people who had an eye for the poorer people in society. This emerged more clearly in the first century B.C. when the republic was coming to an end – reinforced by that rise, some say. So populares who can mobilize the poorer groups actually gain more power in the city. You can see that now with the BBB’s electoral gains.”
What does classical antiquity teach us about BBB’s electoral gains?
“Strong signals and protests from a larger group in society are a message to the established political and social order. That includes a response that makes that particular group feel listened to and that something is being done about the reason for the protests. If that does not happen, then a protest or discontent can escalate.”
Is politics the only way for people to achieve something in society?
“We assume that politics drives society. And in terms of legislation, of course, it does. But if you’re talking about the climate and food, you can also decide on that yourself as a collective. You can do that on a small scale, in a neighborhood. We always have the idea that we have to go to The Hague first and that they have to impose things on us there. But in the Roman Empire, although Rome was dominant, small cities largely arranged their governance themselves. We can learn from that. Some initiatives, like greening the neighborhood or opening a coffee shop, don’t have to go through the municipality; they can go through the neighborhood. You can already see those initiatives emerging. Part of the success of the Roman Empire is that people at the local level needed Rome very little.”
That will work with greening neighborhoods, but not for nitrogen plans.
“No. Because of the large scale, you see that not even The Hague decides on nitrogen plans; it is decided at the European level. In that respect, you also have to unite on a much larger level as a collective.”
What other lessons can we learn from antiquity?
“On the one hand, sometimes I think in my bleaker moments that we learn nothing from history. At the same time, in a lot of ways we actually rely and lean on ways of previous societies that were developed by others. What I have learned in my research is that every individual in a group counts and that a group can be much more powerful than all the structures and systems we invent for it, in any political form. When you put people put at the center of collective experiences, whether it involves going to a funeral together or to the Olympics, the connection between the individual and the collective transcends all political systems.”
On Thursday, April 20, from 12:30-13:30 p.m., Daniëlle Slootjes talked about her research during an online meeting on the initiative “Political history: A social affair,” organized by researchers at Radboud University.
