We watched a lecture by Hartmut Leppin about a concept called Parrhesia, the concept that everyone should have the right to speak, publicly or privately, in poetry or prose, regardless of their social status. When dissected, it has been translated as either “to speak of the past (suffix “-pas”),” or “to speak of everything (suffix “-pan”).” There were different types of Parrhesia: that before the popular assembly, toward friends and relatives, in front of rulers, and before God; there was Parrhesia of the citizen, of the philosopher, and the believer. I found it a bit confusing that the lecturer would describe Parrhesia as an egalitarian entity that was available to everyone, no matter their wealth or position, but would then go on to tell us that not everyone should have it, if they were uneducated, or if they were women (specifically widows). The way Leppin clarified this was that Parrhesia meant everyone should be allowed to speak, even if not everyone should speak, (discussions were expected to be intellectual, well-thought-out, and well-spoken).
This was only one of many paradoxes I noticed about Parrhesia as it was used in its time. Another example would be the fact that prominent political figures were expected to show good sportsmanship and take the public criticisms levied against them, as assassinating their opponent would show pettiness or weakness. On the other hand, they were expected to ban Parrhesia in order to maintain power and avoid an uprising. Those who challenged the leaders also had to strike a difficult balance. They were encouraged to speak against the leaders and accept whatever intellectual response had been prepared for them, but also had to be careful not to provoke their own assassination.
I took particular notice of the man who spoke against widows speaking freely and making public demands, mostly on account of them being widows. I asked Leppin about this and he said that there were some areas, including Judeo-Christian ones, where Parrhesia was granted to women as well as men, because Parrhesia signified a closeness to God, which could not be denied to anyone.
I also noticed that he mentioned Michel Foucault as one of the people who studied Parrhesia. We actually read one of Foucault’s articles in my Gender and Sexuality Studies course at Bryn Mawr. The author has written about the history of sexuality, and we also read an article called Panopticism, which discusses the symbolism and social constructs behind incarceration. In it, he talks about prisons and their use of separating, labeling, and categorizing the people in it. I’m curious as to what else he has written about, and whether he had any correspondence with the other people Leppin cited in his lecture.