Democracy and virtual judgement[1]

Democracy is one of the few concepts that has had stubborn enemies even before having a prominent example in the world! One is hostile to something that exists! What does not exist, has no enemy, unless one is a disciple of the theory that prevention is better than cure? What is remembered as the first form of democracy; was performed in Greece during the reign of Pericles, 4th and 5th centuries BC. Although some consider it to be the rule of Pericles' charisma, not democracy. But even in that form - which Pericles called the government of the people - citizens did not signify all the people, and its assemblies were made of a crowd of several thousand people. However, this same group of citizens dragged Aspasia, the educated wife of Pericles (ruler), to a court with fifteen hundred judges, and Pericles himself defended his wife in the court and even cried, and of course he came out of the court victorious. The same democracy in its continuity has executed Socrates!

At the end of this article; You will see an entwined piece of the process of that democracy, quoted by Will Durant.

The first enemy of democracy in history is Plato. From the time of Plato until today, there have been many theorists and thinkers who have pursued democracy. Their counterparts are those who consider democracy; In the meaning of complete government of the people; by the people; governing the people, an ideal and impossible in reality. Considering the current capacities of societies, it does seem impossible.

Until today, that amount of democracy that has been close to being possible; is The government of the representatives of the majority over everyone. Majority means half plus one voter. In these examples, we can say with confidence that the number of non-voters plus the minority; has always been more than the number of the majority.

On top of that, the competence of the majority, simply because they are numerous, has never been proven. For this reason, the high-ranking thinkers of democracy give credit only to the opinion of the majority, not to the legitimacy of the majority. It is inevitable to follow the opinion of the majority, because a more suitable model of democracy has not been presented to the world - and has not been successful in performance. However, the pessimistic view on the model of democracy; considers it as the government of the lackeys. Lackeys who before each election; lay out their tricks and deceive the majority of the ignorant for their own interest, and if necessary, they also manipulate the votes of the deceived.

There is also a happy pessimistic look that says; The fact that the model of democracy - even in its weakest state - forces lackeys to pay some costs, for their unconditional governing, that is to trouble themselves to fool and to trick, is one of the virtues of democracy. Although even such features naturally lead to the victory of the best of the fools.

You may already have a list of wise, caring and even honest electors in your mind. But the model of democracy does not have only one elector, and such electors are quickly surrounded by other electors, they become limited, all kinds of crises gets created for them, with all kinds of accusations, slanders, and courts.

And they may end up in isolation, exile, execution or assassination.

On the other hand, the Platonic models – which the most prominent ones have come to their end in the middle centuries of Europe and in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or Communist China - have brought such atrocities and tragedies; that Today, only the thought of unconditional government of elites, intellectuals , worthies, etc. shakes the bones of every nation that has experienced it. What are the criteria for identifying the elite? How do intellectuals establish their uniqueness? What authority determines competence?

In a more detailed explanation, democracy means the formation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches; chosen directly or indirectly by the majority of people. But both in the philosophical and political aspects, the guarantee of the survival of democracy is the righteousness, efficacy, strength and independence of the judiciary branch. Because the embodiment of democracy before it being law or prosperity, even before it being freedom, is justice (right judgement).

Here, it is not necessary for us to differ between public judgement; in the sense of relying on everyone's votes in decision-making, and judging; in the concept of following the votes of intellectuals that have been chosen by everyone. Because in both levels, everyone is bound to accept the final vote. Because verifying the eligibility of the voter; or the righteousness of the final vote; never fits in the logic and calculations of democracy and is only among the hopes of this model. The only necessary condition is accepting the responsibility; accepting responsibly the consequences of the vote you gave. Democracy, in its ideal sense; means that you are your own red light, and You are your own green light. Try to imagine a city that knows neither his traffic signs nor his traffic lights. It means that living in an ideal democracy; requires high level skills. It is for this reason that some people still consider anarchism as the only debatable competitor of democracy.

Now, if experiencing ideal democracy in political life seems absurd, is it not possible to experience it in any other field? For example, in criticizing art work? Art, as the most important element of culture, is also the most important platform for practicing democracy. But when democracy is proposed as the ideal form of criticizing (judging), it has found most of his opponents, not among politicians and lawyers, but among religious people and artists (!).

What is meant by religious people; is ideologues in the general sense. It does not matter if this ideology; is monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic or even numinous. In all these areas, the reason of insistence on the authority of elites and the intellectuals of a particular ideology; is for the judgement.

 And in all these fields; The standard and criterion of competence is within a guild and the public appreciation, is an obvious, clear and evident matter, because the owners of any kind of ideology, before anything, even before they become persuaded, in total humbleness, are self-righteous. Because they selflessly, while passing the tests of their guild, have made themselves a mediator between the source of ideology and the world.

They carry out duties which have been entrusted to them by the source of ideology or at least they are sure, or they claim, that such a task has been entrusted to them.

Artists have always shown contradictory behavior in the face of democracy. In the Athenian democracy, the most profound animosity towards the Sophists came from playwrights such as Aeschylus and Sophocles. The most famous plays of Greece, Theban legends, which are written by Sophocles; is written explicitly to condemn the thoughts of the sophists, and as you know sophistry is an insult made by their defeated enemies for the sophists, and today sophistry refers to certain attitudes in a dispute; which was not that of great sophists. Also, another playwright named Aristophanes was one of the postilions of the animosity with Aspasia and contributed to the execution of Socrates.

But the question of this article is not the ideological and political positions of the artist. Because artists - except for those who take side with the government -  the majority of them either do not enter politics or take part with the minority and criticize and argue directly - or indirectly, depending on the type of government – the social, moral and political weaknesses surrounding them; therefore they take side for the people. But whether the majority of them take rightful positions in the society that surrounds them, or not, requires a long and detailed discussion. Critically, let me confine myself to this general and personal opinion that the majority of artists in every era of history have always warned people of the upcoming disasters and do so; again, this means that they take part for the people. It is important to remind this point that in this article; the word artist; is used in its professional sense; That is, in this article; Whoever is called an artist by himself, others or history is an artist.

The question of this article; Giving in to democracy, is in artistic judgment. Regarding the criticized of art works, artists, although they get their qualification from public opinion, often do not value public opinion. Among their slogans, acts and the part they take in politics; some behaviors and words show up from time to time, which is meant to attract the attention of the mass, but in practice, whenever there is a question of criticism, they only value the opinions of the well-known and elites of their own guild. They say; Judging artistic quality requires expertise. If you look at the combination of the judges of various art festivals and competitions, you will see that this expertise does not necessarily mean understanding, professionalism and proof of skill, but simply the fame of an artist is enough to select him as a judge. From the other side; Artists who openly give in to the opinion and taste of the mass and only try to satisfy the emotions of the mass, in the best case; become entertainers that allure and take distance from what was decent in their art works.

In general, being a common person depends on the situation. You can be a famous doctor and be considered a common person in a conversation with your car mechanic. You can be a great scientist and your car dealer will consider you a common person. In contemporary history, the only criterion that can divide the population of a society into common and intellectuals is the social class. A social class stands on three pillars; Power (politics), welfare (economy), esteem (culture). Historical experience has proven that in all patterns experienced, all three are completely linked. As soon as one is reached, the other two are also reachable. It means that those who have power become rich and the rich have power, and these two; determine the standards of worth in society. If we simplify the above statement with a little indulgence; everywhere in the world today; Money is the base of all values, or power; determines value standards; Either in agreement with oneself or in opposition to oneself. Obviously, the artistic values ​​of any work (constitutional values of the art work) are neglected under the shadow of being in favor or against art being a power. In such situation, what is the prestige of submitting to the opinion of the elites compared to submitting to the opinion of the mass? Doesn’t accept the opinion of the people, compared to following the opinion of the elites, make our standards more clear and distinct?

It is unlikely that this proposition: the criticism of art quality requires artistic knowledge, would arise in disagreement between experts. What is more likely to arose disagreement; is the method of verifying the competence of the critic. Is anyone who has an artistic background adequate? Is a lot of experience a sign of a lot of knowledge? Is abundance of knowledge a sign of abundance of power of distinction? Does having fame and reputation in art guarantee a competence in criticism? Does achievement of artistic competence also guarantee righteousness in criticism?

The answer to all these questions can be clearly given by taking a look at different types of festivals, art awards, competitions. In history; There haven’t been a shortage of people worthy of winning awards. But notice all of those worthy people who did not receive an award in their entire lives. Next, list all the non-worthy people who have a showcase of awards; which have been given by the hands of the intellectuals, the selected judges' committee. Then look at the list of judges; such well known names.

It is certain that whenever the criticism of artistic quality falls into the hands of the public, popular works (Pop) fill all the lists. But pay attention that in that case, at least, you can have a clear list of the works that have not received the mass appreciation ! However, if artistic criticism is entrusted to intellectuals, this list will also be altered. Other questions that have never had a direct answer are: Is artistic quality exclusive to works that are not popular? Is art another phenomenon that doesn’t receive the mass appreciation? Is artistic quality limited to works that, while being ambitious, are popular?

Another point that can be considered in the matter of artistic criticism; is the historical fact that the works that were considered popular (pop) for one generation have always become special for the next generations. The blues music of the first half of the 20th century in America is not listened to anymore by the mass. Let's not go far; Today, only a name is left of what we once we loved.

The more complicated question is this ; Is the standard of art criticism the lasting of the work over the centuries? It may be that. When a work touches successive generations, it puts a seal of approval on its artistic capacities. At the same time, there are no few, works that have been neglected for several generations and have gradually presented themselves after several centuries. Haven’t there been any great works throughout history that have been doomed forever?

The proposition that this article wants to bring to your attention is as follows; The quality of artwork is basically evaluated without criticism! In other words, ranking two works of art is, if not impossible, at least as far-fetched as democracy itself. An art work can attract or not attract, it can attract a group and not attract another. In contemporary history, the standards of seductiveness of art have also undergone fundamental changes, and the true evaluation of today's art works requires the passing of time. But in all cases, it seems; The basic condition for a work to be artistic is to take from you the possibility of criticism.

After discussing these subjects, the only subject that remains is taste. Even though in today’s world situation in all fields power, Money; And in the shadow of these two politics; make the final decision, taste is also exerted to the art critics by the lackeys. But taste is also sometimes a logical excuse if it is held and relayed on by a person or people who see a certain type of art working in their interests. For example, the Red Crescent organization could say; We vote for a work that paints the red crescent. But if you pay close attention, even they would be helpless in respecting the justice, between two paintings (even commissioned) of the Red Crescent. Accepting a specific taste and perspective; means giving in to the most invalid level of judgment. In Iran, the taste of artists who are sent from the capital to all kinds of festivals to judge the artists of other provinces has almost destroyed the art of the provinces in all fields.

Every morning, a grandfather scolded his grandson saying, "Why is your face dirty?!" the Grandson greeted the grandfather every morning after washing his hands and face. The grandfather would lift his head from his newspaper and look up and down the grandson and send him back to the bathroom to wash his hands and face. Every time the poor grandson would wake up, he had to go back to the bathroom two or three times and wash his face with soap and water, and in the end the grandfather would give a kind unsatisfactory smile and he would sent him off. One morning, unlike usual, upon seeing his grandson, the grandfather said: "oh wow!" good job! What a clean face!” the grandson said: “ I just came out of bed, but at midnight I woke up and I cleaned your glasses with water and soap!”

Since every social pattern, if it wants to achieve happiness, needs right judgment before anything; You can never stop judging and leave everything on its own. Right judgment is a high level task. It needs practice. We can hope that there are always people in the world who have the authority to judge. The problem arises from the fact that recognizing their competence also requires our right judgment. This is a task that becomes more and more difficult. Because vast communication, as time passes, puts more and more people, without them being professionally selected , in the position of judgement. There was a time when Sadegh Hedayat would prepare fifty hand-printed copies of the blind owl and give them to his acquaintances and wait for months for someone to comment on his masterpiece and judge him.

Nowadays, young girls post new photos of their new hair color in their page and within an hour, they get judgmental comments way more than Hedayat's blind owl. Hedayat in his entire life was never faced with judgments as “like!” or with expressions of excitement as “omg! ”.

People these days are caught in a kind of virtual fulfillment. This fulfillment, although it happens in the virtual space, it also provides people in reality with the illusion that in any field they have the same authority as the greatest expert to judge . A Turkish idiom says "San Kimsen ke me Yokham?" "Who are you that I am not?" "Is your like more valuable than mine?" There’s also  "sankiam? mankiam?" It means "Where I am? Where you are? "You are not on my level". Virtual space will gradually provide the possibility of using this second term for virtual critics.

Virtual judgment means seeing everyone on one's own level or seeing oneself on everyone's level. This is a reminder of the same humanism that was first recognized by Descartes and after him by Kant, and the foundation of liberal democracy - and human rights - is also based on this idea. But they never thought that one day, people, without ever having heard their names, would consider themselves the center of the universe and make rigid and undeniable judgments about everything and everyone. The remarkable point is that the same people in real life pass by everything and everyone with indifference. As if they want to get to the computer as fast as possible, to the without condition virtual world.

The paradox that arbitration holds shows itself in this context. On one hand, identifying competence in judgement requires an expertise, on the other hand, we have to judge an experts competence in judgement. It is not possible to overcome this paradox unless by practicing judging with assiduity . one should practice driving in a street without warning lights. The shoulds and should nots that everyone sets for themselves is an exercise to get closer to the ideal democracy.

I have to practice judging. I have to accompany my judgments with expertise comments. I have to avoid expressions like "I enjoyed it", "I hated it", "I liked it", "I didn't like it". In judgment, these are all empty and meaningless expressions. autocracy is a culture, not a type of government. A citizen is still someone who’s dislikes aren’t important, except for himself! One has to take a distance from the virtual tyranny, from the virtual autocracy. One has to practice so that after leaving a comment, he doesn’t just pass his on with his life with indifference. One has to learn that the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. This is the minimum responsibility. to go back and evaluate the outcome of ones comment in interaction with other people's comments. I have to evaluate myself. I have to increase my understanding in any fields that I am interested in, in interaction with others judgment. Judgment, before any other concept, is associated with responsibility, not with high self-esteem. Irresponsibility is still the biggest disease of an self-righteous, autocratic, shortsighted man .

Exercising taking responsibility in judging, directly is exercising democracy. Aspasia was one of the many excellent prostitutes who had an effective part in the existence of Athens, and Aspasia herself was involved in the upbringing of such women. Aspasia did not accept marriage, which isolated the women of Athens, and in order to be free in her actions and behavior like men and participate side by side of them in cultural affairs, she would not avoid being in illicit relationships and even have several sexual intercourse with different men. We don't have any proof of her beauty, although the ancient writers have spoken about her "small and eye-catching feet", "silver voice" and "golden hair". Aristophanes, who was a malicious political enemy of Pericles [he was 27 years old at the time of Pericles' death] describes Aspasia as follows: "She is one of the prostitutes of the city of Miletus, who established luxurious brothels in Megara and has now brought some of her little girls to Athens. "This great comedian, with at the most subtlety and cleverness, declares that the dispute between Athens and Megara, which led to the Peloponnesian war, was caused by the fact that the people of Megara had stolen some of Aspasia's prostitutes, and Aspasia persuaded Pericles to take her revenge from them. But one should have in mind that Aristophanes is not a historian and his words are trustworthy only when his personal interest is not involved.

When Aspasia arrived in Athens around 450 BC, she established a school to teach philosophy and rhetoric and boldly encouraged women to participate in social affairs and to pursue higher education. The daughters of many noble families came to her school, and some husbands took their wives to her to acquire knowledge. Men also attended her lectures, and Pericles, Socrates, and perhaps Anaxagoras, Euripides, Alcibiades, and Phidias were among them. Socrates himself said that he learned eloquence from her, and some non-approved old rumors also indicate that the politician [Pericles] took Aspasia from the philosopher [Anaxagoras]. At this time, Pericles was happy that his wife had fallen in love with another man [perhaps Anaxagoras]. He had given freedom to his wife so that he would be free in return and his wife had accepted this freedom; And when Pericles brought Aspasia home; She, in return, took a husband for the third time.

Pericles, according to the law he had established in 451 BC, could not officially marry Aspasia, because she was born in Miletus and if a child was born from her, he or she would be considered illegitimate and could not benefit from citizenship rights (The main citizens of Athenians had the right to vote). It is known that Pericles loved Aspasia with all his heart and did not leave the house until he kissed her. And in the end, he made a will so that all his property would be given to his son from Aspasia. Pericles, ever since he started his life with Aspasia, avoided social life outside his house and was rarely seen anywhere except in the city square and at the council. The people of Athens were upset from his withdrawn and would repine about it. Aspasia, on the other hand, had turned Pericles' house into an open-minded conversational space, where Athenian science, art, literature, philosophy, and politics came together to ameliorate each other's progress. Socrates was amazed by the eloquence of Aspasia's words, and attributed to her one of the speeches that Pericles delivered in the mourning for the first killed warriors of the Peloponnesian War. Aspasia became the uncrowned queen of Athens, established new customs, and became an impressive example of freedom of thought and spirit for the women of Athens.

The conservatives, got surprised by the situation that had happened, then put it in the use of their interests and purposes and accused Pericles that, for example, in Aegina and Samos, of having Greeks fight with Greeks and wasting the treasury of the country and in the end they abused the freedom of speech that was given in Pericles era and accused him of making his house a place of debauchery and having illicit relationships with his own wife! Because they didn't dare to raise any of these accusations openly in the courts, they attacked his friends to attack him indirectly. Phidias was brought to court on the charge of embezzling some of the gold he was given to for the making of the statue of Athena, and apparently they were able to convict him; they accused Anaxagoras of atheism and Pericles found it more prudent for the philosopher [Anaxagoras] to flee abroad. They treated Aspasia in the same way and prosecuted her for the crime of indecency and insulting the Greek gods. The poets and comedians satirized her mercilessly and called her a Deianira (the wife of Hercules, who gave her husband poisoned cups and thus killed him) who has brought Pericles to ruin, and frankly called her evil. One of these mediocre poets, whose name was Hermippus, considered Aspasia a pimp of Pericles and accused her of taking single women for his debauch. In Aspasia's trial, which was made in the presence of a committee consisted of fifteen hundred judges, Pericles himself defended her and used all his eloquence to the point of crying, and the case ended. From that date (432 BC) onwards, Pericles' control over the people of Athens began to fade, and three years later, when his death came, he was a broken man.

Jalal Tehrani

[1] For Kaveh’s contest, 22 August 2010