The origin of classical greek culture: the transparent chain theory of literacy/society interaction

Abstract

Classical Greek culture differs from that of previous societies. Various people have attributed this to the Greek alphabet (which differed from its precursor, the Semitic alphabet, in containing vowel letters). I review recent research upon the reading of vowelled and unvowelled alphabet writing. Early writing systems were phonetic—in spite of this, research together with palaeographic evidence suggests that the first people to read phonologically were the Greeks. I propose a two chain theory of literacy whereby the method of reading affects literacy-society interaction. I call the chains transparent (closely associated with phonological reading) and opaque (associated with non-phonological or lexical reading). Opaque literacy enhances and produces authoritarian structured societies; transparent literacy in contrast is anti-authoritarian. I suggest this trait inhibited the rise of ruling (or governing) elites in Greek society. Human communities (such as hunter-gatherer bands) without such elites show (a) individualism, (b) debate (where all freely contribute), and (c) egalitarianism. I propose that the major cultural, intellectual, and social innovations of the Classical Greeks relate to (1) the inhibition of ruling elites by the Greek alphabet, which (2) created human culture based upon individualism, debate, and equality—human traits last expressed in hunter-gatherer bands—but which (3) led to cultural and intellectual innovations in the Greeks because they existed within the technological circumstances of urban life. This explanation reverses the usual explanans and explanandum of Classical studies: instead of culture and politics explaining the nature of literacy in Classical Greece, I suggest literacy explains the nature of Classical Greek culture and politics. The key idea of this paper is that different kinds of writing create and disable different kinds of social authority. The impact of literacy upon society is an area yet to be fully debated and explored; this paper adds to it critical new information about the reading of vowelled and unvowelled writing which must change our view of the history of literacy.