BRIBERY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS Kellam ... - Historia Antigua

Conover Bribery in Classical Athens Chapter One
In the final section we will address some of the crucial implications that emerge
from this conflict in social frames, but for now I would like to point out two advantages
that a relational model of bribery has over the standard view. First, thinking of bribery as
a social frame allows us to underscore the contiguities between bribery both inside and
outside the practice of politics. Bribing a legislator is structurally homologous to bribing
an agent, corrupting an athlete, or simply bribing a child to get good grades; that the one
happens within the ‘political sphere’, while the others do not, is incidental to a large
degree. English readily uses the same verb, “to bribe,” in each context, after all. Because
there is little reason to think that political bribery is somehow unique among social
practices, a proper understanding of bribery would locate political bribery within the
larger context of norm violations purportedly induced by gain. This is precisely what a
relational approach does.
Even so, what does change among these last examples is the normative value of
the bribe. 19 In other words, within each distinct social (hence normative) context this
social frame takes on different normative values. For Zelizer, the ‘social meaning’ of
money—whether we understand it as gift, sale, salary, bonus, bribe, allowance, tip, etc.—
derives from the precise combination of transaction medium, transaction context, and
relationship between the transactors. Though partially independent, these categories must
always be ‘matched’; a mismatch can result in an undesirable, even an immoral,
exchange. 20 For example, pretend you come across a man handing a woman $100 in
19
Underscored by Pardo (2004a: 4-7) and the essays collected in the same volume; see also Sahlins (1972:
196-9).
20
Zelizer (1994; 2001: 9993-4). That the ‘meaning’ of money thus stems from the context in which it is
transferred is likewise highlighted by Appadurai (1986: 3-6) and Bloch and Parry (1989: 19-23), who
emphasize the role played by cultural context in specifying which ways money can be represented, i.e.
which specific ‘meanings’ money can have. See also the essays collected in Parry and Bloch (1989),
DiMaggio (1994) and Levin (2008).
36