SPARTAN SOCIETY: STRUCTURAL RITUALIZATION IN AN ANCIENT SOCIALSYSTEM*

J. David KnottnerusDepartment of Sociology

CLB 006Oklahoma State UniversityStillwater, OK 74078-4062

jdk2307@okstate.eduPhone: 405-744-6106

Phyllis E. BerryCriminal Justice Program

School of Social & Community Service615 McCallie Avenue

University of TennesseeChattanooga, TN 37403-2598

* 2002. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 27:1-42.Communications about this paper should be sent to J. David Knottnerus, Department of Sociology, CLB 006, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-4062. A version of this paper was presented at the World Congress of Sociology, International Sociological Association, Research Committee on Social Psychology,Montreal, 1998. The authors would like to thank Jane Sell for heruseful comments and suggestions.

2

2

SPARTAN SOCIETY: STRUCTURAL RITUALIZATION IN AN ANCIENT SOCIALSYSTEM

This investigation focuses on the social dynamics involved with the training of male youth within Spartan society from 600 to 371 BC. Various historical sources are drawn upon to document the mode of rearing by which adult (male) citizen warriors were developed. In examining this unique state-run social system, we direct attention to the different ritualized practices comprising the rearing system that included the agoge (extremely disciplined, compulsory method of upbringing), age-classes, communal living, military ascetic practices, dining clubs, and other collective events and activities. A theory of structural ritualization is utilized to explain how ritualized practices and social arrangements of Spartan society were reproduced within youth. According to the theory, four factors – salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources – play a key role in ritualization processes. The theory’s factors are used as a lens through which to better understand the development of five core Spartan qualities (symbolic themes): social harmony and equality, obedience and hierarchical distinctions, aggressiveness, deceptiveness, and simplicity. This investigation represents the first focused analysis of the Spartan rearing system and its consequences utilizing this (or any other sociological/social psychological) theoretical perspective. An assessment is providedof the explanatory value of this account and possible directions for future theory development and research are suggested.

This study examines the social processes involved with the

preparation and training of male youth (and young adults) for

adult citizenship within Spartan society from 600 to 371 BC. We

employ a variety of historical sources to document the components

of this educational or socialization process. A theory of

structural ritualization focusing on group dynamics,

ritualization, and multi-level structural processes is utilized to

explain how dominant ritualized practices and structural

arrangements of Spartan society were reproduced within these

youthful actors. Such an investigation represents the first

analysis of this topic that employs a formal social psychological

theory.

The period in Spartan history under investigation in this

paper was the product of a profound reorganization in the

institutional and cultural life of this social system (for

scholarly works examining ancient Sparta see De Ste. Croix 1972;

Huxley 1970; Forrest 1980; Hooker 1980; Cartledge 1978, 1979;

Sealey 1976; Oliva 1971; Fitzhardinge 1980; Lazenby 1985). More

precisely, having won the Second Messenian War (650 to 620 BC),

Sparta still faced many problems within its society including the

4

possibility of political tyranny. Unique among all major city-

states, Sparta avoided this development. But in doing so, the

"desperate measures adopted would entail nothing less than a total

militarization of their society" (Bryant 1996, p. 60; see Finley

1963, p. 65).

This transformation of Sparta, which created a quite unique

form of social stability, was, according to ancient historians,

the product of an ninth or eighth century lawgiver Lycurgus

(Dillon and Garland 1994, p. 145). Most modern historians,

however, doubt this was the case. Rather, Lycurgus served to

symbolize and legitimize a new social order that was the product

of a long and uneven process of reform (probably both deliberate

and nondeliberate in nature), whose major characteristics emerged

within the fifty years subsequent to the Second Messenian War. It

is this social system and the social behavior of the members of

this mature Spartan society which is the concern of this

investigation.

Before preceding any further, however, several precautions

should be noted. First of all, being a study of a social system

in ancient history, limitations exist in the evidence that is

5

available. Furthermore, certain ancient historians view some of

the features of Spartan society (i.e., the agoge and other aspects

of its social and political institutions that will be discussed

later) as fallacies created by non-Spartan authors. These efforts

to imbue the polis with utopian qualities that it my not have

actually had are known as the “Spartan mirage” (see Ollier 1973;

Tigerstedt 1965, 1974, 1978; Rawson 1969). Finally, while the

present investigation and analysis must to some degree make

generalizations about social conditions and processes it should be

recognized that viewing Spartans, particularly the adults in

policy-making positions, as monolithic would be misleading and

inappropriate. As in many, if not all, historical cases,

variations in practices and deviations from standardized social

patterns can be identified.1 For these reasons, we would emphasize

that while drawing on a wide variety of sources (from antiquity,

historians, and classical scholars) to conduct this analysis of

and make generalizations about the social dynamics operating in

this society, one should always exercise a certain degree of

caution concerning any conclusions reached in light of these

methodological and interpretative concerns.

6

Given these cautions and limitations inherent to a study of

such an ancient society and the fact that space does not allow for

an extended description of the Spartan social system, several

features of this social order warrant brief attention. To begin

with, Sparta was an agricultural, slave state. Its military

successes provided the society with ample labor and land (after

conquering Messene, Sparta covered thirty-three thousand square

miles of land). A system of land tenure created a standard

redistribution of property. Lycurgus had presumably called for an

equal division of land among the citizens of Sparta. While it is

unknown whether land was actually divided in such an equal manner,

it appears that each citizen was given a plot of land adequate for

supporting a family (possibly around fifty acres). The heavy need

for labor to farm this land was solved through the Spartan

practice of enserfing the conquered peoples living in these

territories. This class, known as the Helots, was forced to give

the Spartans a significant amount of their annual produce

(possibly up to half of their crop).2 The Helots were essentially

slaves who were not privately owned, but were the collective

property of all citizens or the state (To be precise, helotage

7

preceded the Second Messenian War. The Spartans originally

enslaved the indigenous population before extending the system to

the West after the war). While all Greek city-states possessed

slaves, only Sparta had such an imbalanced ratio of slaves to

Spartan citizens. No other Greek state contained such a small

number of citizens relative to the number of slaves within their

territory. Indeed, it has been estimated that five to eight

thousand adult male Spartans enslaved a Helot population of one

hundred and fifty thousand persons (Ehrenberg 1964, pp. 32-39;

Bryant 1996, p. 138).

In essence, Sparta was a society that faced both external and

internal threats. Like other Greek city-states, war with one's

Greek neighbors and other cultures was always a possibility.

While Sparta effectively utilized various political strategies

such as the forming of alliances with other Greek societies, overt

conflict with external enemies was a not uncommon occurrence

(whether for offensive or defensive purposes). Beyond this,

however, Sparta was faced with a potentially dangerous threat from

its large enslaved population of Helots. The price paid for

freedom from physical labor, especially agricultural work, was the

8

need for constant military wariness and control of a group of

people willing to retaliate against their enslavers. The fact

that the Helots periodically attempted to revolt meant that the

Spartans found it necessary to subject the Helots to constant

monitoring and quite severe constraints.

These are some of the most prominent features that defined

Spartan society, a social order distinguished by its exceptional

nature and success, in terms of its social stability, in the

period under study. Indeed, Sparta possessed a unique structure

in the Greek world (Finley 1982). It was a state-run social

system dedicated to the development of all free male citizens as

military warriors. And, contributing to the eunomia, i.e., good

order or, more generally speaking, way of life, of Sparta was the

condition of homoioi which referred to the equal (peer) status of

citizen warriors, especially their common way of life.

Stated somewhat differently, the military and militaristic

police system that emerged in Sparta represented an attempt to

accommodate themselves to the internal and external threats faced

by this city-state. To do this, however, required a powerful mode

of socialization or training to ensure that these citizen warriors

9

would exhibit the necessary behaviors vital to the ongoing

maintenance of the social order. It is this method of rearing

that we give particular attention to in this study. Such a

rearing system played, we argue, a crucial role in the

preservation of Spartan social arrangements which endured for,

what most scholars agree was, approximately a two to three century

period.

The importance of this method of rearing is reflected in the

fact that certain historians have noted how Spartan instructional

practices served to accustom youth to a particular way of life.

This compulsory rearing system for male youth began at an early

age. Children were raised in groups where they were subjected to

extreme discipline and a very stern form of instruction focusing

on, among other things, military training. This highly organized

program continued into early adulthood and involved nearly all

aspects of individuals’ lives including content of instructional

material, physical exercise, beatings, competitive games,

restricted diets, barracks living, and clothing style. Spartan

education involved a training program that provided a

comprehensive system of socialization aimed at constructing a

10

particular social character and orientation (Marrou 1982; Bolger

1969; see also Finley 1982 who emphasizes the importance of the

"ritual system" by which boys were raised by the state). Such

observations are certainly both accurate and relevant.

Nevertheless, it is also the case that this training program has

not been subjected to a focused investigation which would provide

an in-depth analysis of how the various practices constituting

this mode of education worked. In other words, no one has

analyzed this system in a rigorous manner utilizing a sociological

or social psychological framework.

To analyze this rearing program, we, therefore, employ the

theory of structural ritualization, a theory that focuses on the

ritualized practices of social life and argues that such

activities play a crucial role in the reproduction, and sometimes

alteration, of social relations, identity, and social structure.

According to this perspective, ritualized actions take numerous

forms and may involve both the daily activities of actors and the

less frequent, yet highly dramatized, ritualized practices shared

by members of communities and other groups. We suggest that the

analysis of Sparta through the lens of this approach contributes

11

to both a better understanding of the theory (while raising

questions and issues for further development) and a better

understanding of Sparta. After presenting this analysis we

briefly compare the theory to several alternative accounts of

Spartan social dynamics in the conclusion.

THEORY OF STRUCTURAL RITUALIZATION

In Sparta, youth were profoundly influenced by Spartan

society and its institutionalized training system. As a result of

their experiences and the symbolic models they encountered within

this social environment, there developed among these youth an

array of relationships, identity, and social structure which were

in certain significant respects similar to the practices and

organization of the institutional milieu in which they were

embedded.

To more fully explain how this process occurred, we utilize

the formal theory of structural ritualization (Knottnerus 1997).

We believe this is a fruitful theory to utilize because of its

explanatory focus and because historical comparative research

(Knottnerus and Van de Poel-Knottnerus 1999) and an experimental

test (Sell, Knottnerus, Ellison, and Mundt 2000) of the theory

12

provide support for the formulation. Reflecting a commitment to

multi-method research (Brewer and Hunter 1989; on the value of

historical research for sociology see Cahnman and Boskoff 1964,

pp. 6-7), additional case studies and historical investigations

have also provided exemplifications and elaborations of the theory

(Knottnerus 1999; Knottnerus, Monk and Jones 1999; Guan and

Knottnerus 1999; Knottnerus forthcoming; Varner and Knottnerus

forthcoming).

The theory focuses on the role ritualization plays in the

formation, reproduction, and transformation of social structure in

groups embedded within a larger social environment. Embedded

groups are bounded groups located within a more encompassing

organized collectivity such as an institutional system (e.g., an

informal youth group within the Spartan city-state and its

institutionalized educational program, a problem-solving group

within a bureaucratic organization, or a slave society within a

plantation system). The theory directs attention to the processes

affecting the degree to which ritualized practices and social

structures, similar or dissimilar to those found in the larger

milieu, emerge within an embedded group.

13

The concept of ritual is, therefore, central to the theory.

Various scholars have employed this or related concepts such as

habitus for analytical purposes (e.g., Durkheim 1965; Bourdieu

1977; Elias 1978; Collins 1981, 1987; Goffman 1967; Bell 1992;

Lukes 1975; Warner 1959; Turner 1967; Douglas 1970; Giddens 1984).

While investigations of rituals have often focused on religious

and sacred behaviors, the theory of structural ritualization

focuses on interaction sequences and social actions that are found

in many different kinds of settings including secular contexts.

Such an approach parallels in certain respects Kertzer's (1988)

definition of ritual as repetitive and socially standardized

behavior.

While the idea of ritualization is of value to various

formulations in the social sciences, the theory of structural

ritualization provides formal definitions of rituals that

distinguish this approach from other theoretical/research

traditions. In doing so, it provides a more precise theory, makes

it easier to employ the theoretical perspective for purposes of

analysis (in addition to, in certain cases, allowing for a more

14

rigorous test of the theory), and allows for derivations and

further theory development.

According to the theory, an action repertoire is defined as a set

the elements of which are socially standardized practices. Here,

socially standardized refers to regularly engaged social practices. In

addition, a schema is a cognitive structure or framework. These

ideas are utilized to define the core concept of the theory,

ritualized symbolic practice (RSP), which refers to an action repertoire

that is schema driven.

Ritualized symbolic practices refer to the ubiquitous form of

social behavior in which people engage in repetitious and

regularized actions when interacting with others. Such social

practices occur throughout social life and can include

standardized styles of interaction within different institutional

or organizational milieus, subcultures, and informal groups (e.g.,

work organizations, schools, families, religious settings, youth

groups, or political arenas). The theory argues that ritualized

action repertoires which comprise much of the "taken for granted

daily lives" of actors (a general concern of phenomenologists and

ethnomethodologists such as Berger and Luckmann 1966 and Garfinkel

15

1967) rest on cognitive schemas. Although individuals may not

reflect upon and consciously pay heed to many of the ritualized

activities that constitute their everyday lives, such behaviors

still rest upon symbolic frameworks or cognitive structures (i.e.,

organizations of cognitive representations). These symbolic

frameworks articulate and express different thematic meanings.

The theory applies to certain contexts known as domains of

interaction. These are bounded social arenas containing two or more

actors who are engaged (at least part of the time) in face-to-face

interaction. Such social spheres have the ability to affect the

likelihood of occurrences that involve actors' behaviors and

cognitions. This concept allows us to distinguish between social

environments such as institutions (e.g., a Spartan educational

system versus a day school) in which embedded groups are exposed

to ritualized symbolic practices in different numbers of domains

of interaction for varying lengths of time.

In explaining how a larger social environment may influence

the social dynamics of a group nested (i.e., embedded) within that

more encompassing organized collectivity, the theory suggests that

when ritualized practices and symbolic patterns in a social milieu

16

are strongly accentuated and presented to the inhabitants of an

embedded group, they instill 'schema-driven action repertoires'

which are variations of standard practices. The greater the

impact of these ritualized activities on actors, the more similar

or isomorphic will be their immediate social world and the wider

milieu within which they are located. On the other hand, when

individuals are presented with ritualized practices that differ

from each other, the structure of their embedded group and the

surrounding environment will be less similar (i.e., non-

isomorphic). In essence, the theory argues that ritualized

symbolic practices are influenced by four factors in a larger

social environment: salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and

resources.

Salience refers to the degree to which a ritualized symbolic

practice is perceived to be central to an act, action sequence, or

bundle of interrelated acts within a domain of interaction. In

other words, it is concerned with the extent to which a ritualized

practice is perceived to be noticeable or prominent. Repetitiveness

is concerned with the frequency with which a ritualized practice

is performed within an interaction domain. Homologousness refers to

17

the degree of perceived similarity among different ritualized

symbolic practices. In other words, different practices may exist

within a domain (or multiple domains in, for instance, a social

setting such as a training program) and exhibit to varying degrees

a similarity in their meaning and form. And, RSP resources focus on

the materials needed to engage in ritualized practices within a

domain. They may include both human and nonhuman resources, such

as interpersonal skills, physical strength, or physical dwellings

and their furnishings.

The theory argues that the greater the degree of salience of

ritualized symbolic practices, repetitiveness of ritualized

practices, presence of homologous ritualized practices, and

availability of RSP resources in a larger milieu [or, more

precisely speaking, domain(s) in this milieu], the greater the

rank or relative standing of ritualized symbolic practices in that

environment. The greater the rank or dominance of these practices,

the more likely new, yet similar ritualized symbolic practices

(i.e., schema driven action repertoires) will emerge among actors

in an embedded group. Due to their similarity in overall form,

isomorphic structures will result. Structural isomorphism refers to

18

an equivalence of social relations and their pattern of

organization in an embedded group and a social environment.

In other words, the higher the rank of ritualized practices

in the larger milieu, the more likely the array or system of

ritualized practices and relations in the embedded group will be

comparable to the patterns and social arrangements of the

surrounding environment. The result of this process is structural

reproduction in the embedded group.

It should be emphasized that while engaging in such a

reproductive process, people utilize the taken for granted

symbolic models and action repertoires from their previous

experiences and surrounding world to "construct" their social

world. Furthermore, it is possible that actors disapprove of and

oppose the larger social system they are embedded in. They are

still, however, influenced to varying degrees by dominant aspects

of the environment they are exposed to as they engage in the

process of social construction and the establishment of new

ritualized practices in their embedded group. While such an

outcome may be counterintuitive, it is consistent with the logic

of the theoretical formulation. In making this argument, the

19

perspective directs attention to an irony of social life that

reproduction of social structure occurs even when it may not be in

the interests of the individual or the group.

THE SPARTAN TRAINING SYSTEM

In the social environment of the Spartan training system,

numerous ritualized symbolic activities and relations existed

which shared certain basic meanings and forms and had a direct

impact on youth. These practices rested upon certain symbolic

frameworks or cognitive structures that conveyed and dramatized a

set of thematic meanings that were presented to all actors. These

rituals were highly ranked or dominant ritualized symbolic

practices in the larger milieu of Spartan society and its

institutionalized system of training. As such, they were the most

important ritualized practices boys were exposed to which, in

turn, affected the dynamics and structure of the youth society

embedded within this larger environment. The outcome of this

intensive process of instruction was a very distinct social

orientation, identity, and array of social relations among actors,

first as youth and later as adult citizens who, in turn, defined

the nature of Spartan society.

20

More precisely, we suggest that an examination of available

historical evidence (i.e., studies by scholars of antiquity,

ancient Greek historians and writers, and archaeological sources)

enables us to identify and classify the core thematic attributes

characterizing these ritualized practices (and Spartan social

arrangements). While many different ritualized activities are

found in Spartan society and its training program, for the

purposes of analysis, it is possible to distinguish among the core

schematic or symbolic messages communicated by these practices.

Five key qualities were, we argue, stressed. While the subsequent

discussion will describe the various ritualized practices through

which these symbolic meanings were transmitted, we will first

outline these themes. Of course, it should be recognized that in

reality any particular ritualized act could include one or more of

these themes.

The five qualities (i.e., symbolic themes expressed through

ritualized practices) were: (1) extreme simplicity, austerity, and

frugality in behavior and living conditions; (2) social unity,

harmony, and homogeneity ("equality") of group members; (3)

hierarchical distinctions and disciplined obedience to authorities

21

and the state; (4) aggressiveness, competitiveness,

courageousness, and a militaristic bearing; and (5) deceptiveness,

secretiveness, and a opportunistic orientation (especially in

regard to militaristic activities, techniques of domination, and

propaganda).

The training system youth were "embedded" in exposed them to

an array of practices that fostered the development of these

Spartan attributes. By full adulthood, these attributes had

become deeply ingrained aspects of their personal and social

lives. Or, to be more precise, these practices, interpreted

within the theoretical framework employed here, occurred in a

number of interaction domains that accounted for most of the

Spartan youth's daily life (e.g., the settings where they received

instruction, meals, their living quarters, special ceremonial

occasions, their nighttime activities). They were highly salient

or prominent; they were frequently engaged in; they were quite

homologous (similar) in terms of their basic meaning and form; and

they occurred in a social setting which had the social, physical,

and economic resources to support such activities. They were

highly ranked ritualized symbolic practices. Such schema-driven

22

action repertoires (or symbolic models) provided a constant and

vivid reminder of the centrality of the aforementioned qualities

in the lives of all concerned.

Probably most important in the experiences of all male youth

was the agoge that designated the system by which boys were raised

by the state. This was an extremely disciplined, compulsory mode

of ‘upbringing’ that Finley (1982, p. 38) suggests is what was

unique about Sparta and "makes the Spartan system." It was the

way the various elements of this system were combined in a complex

manner to perform the function that they did which distinguished

Sparta from other Greek communities. Bryant (1996, p. 63)

provides us with a succinct description of some of the key aspects

of the agoge:

Male children, upon attaining their seventh year, were removed from maternal supervision and turned over to civic officials for military training and character formation. Enrolled in "packs," the boys passed through a series of age grades that prepared them for citizenship duties. Reading and writing were taught, along with certain musical arts, but"only for practical purposes"; the aim throughout was to produce "obedience, fortitude in distress, and victory in battle." This educational system was under the authority of a special magistrate known as the paidonomos, attended in his activities by whip-bearing youths who administered "necessary" floggings. Communal living began at twelve, as

23

did a full-blown military asceticism [quotations from Plutarch].

Given this focus upon military training, great importance was

given to physical education and developing strength through sports

such as hunting and athletics. Early on youth "began to do real

military training as well as gymnastics, learning how to move with

others in formation, how to handle arms, how to fence and throw

the javelin and so on" (Marrou 1982, p. 21). Participation in the

agoge lasted until age thirty at which time individuals fully

joined the syssitia (to be discussed later). The early age youth

began this system of ritualized instruction and the lengthy period

of time they were in it directly contributed to the development of

a militaristic and aggressive bearing, a sense of hierarchical

distinctions, and a respect for authority.

A sense of hierarchical/status distinctions, authority, and

the importance of the group one is a member of and identifies

with, was reinforced by the ritualized structure of age-classes

and associations. The most likely arrangement (Marrou 1982, p.

20; see also Chrimes 1952) of the complicated yearly class system

involved three age categories: eight to eleven; twelve to fifteen;

24

and sixteen to twenty. Each of these was, in turn, broken down

into four or five distinct yearly classes. Furthermore, boys were

placed into units directed by a senior (a twenty year old), which

were further divided into small groups (six individuals) whose

leader was the smartest boy and who was given an honorific title.

The system was collective, hierarchical, and progressive in the

sense that boys' lives were increasingly enveloped by this

ritualized array of practices as they entered adolescence (age

twelve). This is an observation which is quite relevant to the

present analysis and which has been noted by certain historians

such as Flaciliere (1968, p. 85): "In Sparta these activities were

no optional affair, to be pursued over weekends or during the

holidays: they formed a compulsory daily routine, woven into the very

fabric of a boy's life" [italics ours].

Daily life in this program stressed courageousness,

competitiveness, and physical development. Actually, such a

training process began before entry into the agoge because even

infants were the objects of a specialized type of training.

Plutarch states, "instead of tight-swaddling the babies in their

[nurses] care, they left their limbs and bodies entirely

25

unimpeded. They taught them to avoid any sort of faddiness or

fuss in their diet; not to be scared of the dark; not to mind

being left alone; and to restrain themselves from tears, screaming

fits, or any other vulgar tantrums of that sort" (ibid, p. 85).

In the agoge the previously referred to formal goals and structure

of the program increasingly emphasized such qualities. This focus

was further reinforced by the fact that "manliness and fighting

spirit were developed by way of beatings; hence the fights between

gangs of boys at the Platanistas or in front of the sanctuary to

Orthia, in which the educational value of Discord . . . was taken

very literally, not to say brutally" (Marrou 1982, pp. 22-23).

For instance, in the Platanistas, which was a periodic battle or

contest held between groups of boys, it is reported that the "lads

fought and kicked and bit those on the opposing side and 'tore

each others' eyes out'" (Chrimes 1952, p. 118). Organized brawls

and competitive games were important ritualized events in the

training system (Hodkinson 1983, p. 249). And, those who

distinguished themselves in these and related activities were

rewarded for their merit (ibid, p. 248): "It was the boy who

excelled in judgement and was most courageous in fighting who

26

became the leader of his contemporaries . . ." At the same time,

a collective orientation was reinforced by the fact that many of

these ritualized practices occurred as group activities, demanded

loyalty to and sacrifice for the group, and resulted in high-

ranking positions within social units.

Furthermore, a number of other highly salient and frequently

engaged in activities emphasized the same themes. Consider, for

instance, Xenophon's comment that "instead of softening the boys'

feet with boots, he [Lycurgus] ordained that they should

strengthen them by going bare-foot, thinking that with this

training they would walk uphill more easily, downhill more safely,

spring faster and jump both farther and higher" (Harley 1934, pp.

131-132). And, Harley (ibid, p. 133) states that fights were

encouraged by Spartans and they "relied on strength, endurance,

and speed . . . they were devoted to ball games, and as names of

victorious teams are on record, commemorated in stone, presumably

they were games dependent on the team spirit . . . No hot baths

for them after the Gymnasium, no oils and scents. And for a bed a

hurdle of reeds." It is for these reasons, that scholars such as

Kennell (1995, p. 112) conclude that the "inculcation of courage

27

and endurance had been one of the primary goals of Spartan

traditional education for as long as we have evidence" (along with

the other qualities characterizing Spartan ritualized activities

such as social unity, commitment to the group, and austerity).

These and other highly prominent, commonplace practices

reinforced a commitment to obedience and an appreciation for

hierarchical distinctions. In describing the daily life of

children Marrou (1982, p. 22) states:

In fact the citizen's fundamental and almost only virtue was obedience. The child was trained to obey in the most minute detail. He was never left to himself without someone over him. He owed obedience to all who were ranged above him . . . The child was also obliged to obey any adult citizen he met on the road.

And, as Xenophon notes, the role of punishment played a crucial

role in creating this "remarkable respect and obedience" (Harley

1934, p. 131). Powell (1988, p. 232) provides a vivid description

of how a number of salient, recurrent, and similar themes

consistently defined the life experiences of youth:

It [social political precedence] was fostered-deliberately ornot-in childhood . . . a large range of names applied to different age-groups of children at Sparta, which may reflectthe nurturing of an unusually lively sense of status based onage, a sense meant in later life to contribute to the Spartanreverence for seniority . . . the young men with the whips,

28

must have formed an unforgettable pinnacle of juvenile society. Xenophon writes that young adult men competed for selection as members of an elite group. The reasons for the inclusion or rejection of each individual were made very clear, he states . . . it would be hard to resist Xenophon's own conclusion, that competitiveness and thus a sense of hierarchy were being bred deliberately. Rivals would "box out of rivalry wherever they met". If this was a way for a young man to restore his esteem, considerable value must havebeen attached to the physical powers needed for a successful beating-up.

As is also evident in some of these practices, simplicity and

austerity were dominant themes in the training process. Various

sources confirm that boys' daily lives were marked by frugality.

For instance, Xenophon states that (Harley 1934, p. 132):

One suit for the year he [Lycurgus] decided should take the place of the enervating changes, training the body better to resist both heat and cold. Diet he left to the master's judgement: the stomach must never be overloaded and should not be without experience of short commons; for such trainingwould make boys able to work without food, if need arose, andto hold out longer on an unchanging diet if ordered . . .

And, drawing upon ancient historians such as Xenophon and

Plutarch, Marrou (1982, p. 22) informs us "They went around in

poor clothes, hatless, with shaven heads and bare feet, and slept

on a litter of reeds from the Eurotas, lined in winter with a

padding of thistle-flock. And they got very little to eat . . .”

29

It was an ascetic and austere life style which constantly forced

youth to endure harsh living conditions and learn how to live with

pain.

Of course, a number of these ritualized practices, such as

assignment to age-classes, membership in associations or units,

and participation in team sports and varying kinds of contests

(including the more brutal ones), underscored at the same time the

importance of social harmony, unity, homogeneity, and the need for

commitment and conformity to the group. As Bryant (1996, p. 64;

see Sealy 1976, p. 80) observes: "Uniformity was fostered by the

compulsory agoge, while barracks living and various sumptuary

decrees promoted a common style of life. In the new Spartan

order, the individual was totally subordinated to the interests of

the collective."

It is rather remarkable how many dimensions of boys' daily

life repeatedly accentuated the priority of the group. All

children were schooled and lived together (Hodkinson 1983, p. 246;

Powell 1988, pp. 226, 229). They all wore the same humble dress

and ate the same, limited amount of food together in common dining

areas. They all equally received instruction in subjects ranging

30

from music to military and physical exercise (Jones 1967, p. 23;

Sealey 1976, p. 79); they all belonged to associations or packs;

and they all participated in group competition. This "pressure

towards conformity was reinforced" through other features of the

program such as the use of corporeal punishments and a "multiple

supervision" system in which "those responsible for supervising

might be under supervision themselves" (Hodkinson 1983, p. 247).

And, just to mention one other feature of this ritualized

rearing system, the importance placed on oral culture and laconic

speech, and not on learned education and reading, further

contributed to the priority of the collective. Powell (1988, p.

236) explains why:

Reading might promote political disunity. For one thing, books from outside Sparta would bring in alien ideals. Also,private reading of diverse material away from the pressures of the dining group, or even private reflection on common texts, would encourage diversity of opinion. Oral culture, shared by the dining group, was far likelier to produce the homogeneity of character which embattled Sparta required.

Even dominant ritualized verbal practices such as these (in terms

of salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources), which

began in childhood and continued into adulthood, contributed to a

group orientation and commitment to social unity. Indeed, it was

31

the combined impact of these various highly ranked ritualized

symbolic practices that undoubtedly leads Kennell (1995, p. 124)

to conclude that, in contrast to Athenian society: "At

Sparta . . . the youths displayed and emphasized their collective

identity . . . not just during religious festivals, but at every

moment of the day, waking and sleeping."3

On a somewhat more speculative note (since this is not a

paper designed to extend the theory of structural ritualization),

the various ritualized practices engaged in by these social actors

might very likely have contributed to the formation of

legitimating beliefs that strengthened the social bonds among the

members of this group. Resting upon cognitive structures or

symbolic frameworks, ritualized practices provide the symbolic

meanings that could easily develop into belief systems that serve

to validate or legitimate a group and its activities. These

beliefs could even include ideas concerning the moral worth and

superiority of the group relative to other groups. Ritualized

practices focusing on social unity/priority of the group and

militarism/aggression could have spawned various legitimating

beliefs dealing with, for example, the strength and valor of

32

Spartans, their superior character and moral worth, the special

honor and distinction that accompanied their willingness to

sacrifice for Sparta, the importance of commitment to one’s

fellows, and so on. Such legitimating beliefs could have directly

contributed to, among other things, the presence of a collective

orientation in the behavior of young Spartan men.

Lastly, we find that deceptiveness and secretiveness were

usually emphasized in the rearing of youth. Various sources refer

to this theme. For instance, Marrou (1982, p. 22) states: "The

whole purpose of Spartan education was to build up character

according to a clearly defined ideal . . . The ideal was an

absolute patriotism, devotion to the State carried to the supreme

limit of death . . . the result of all this was that the young men

who were being educated were taught to be crafty, to tell lies and

to thieve." Moreover, Kennell (1995, p. 18) states that: "They

also accustom them to stealing, and punish whoever is caught with

blows, so that as a result of this they might be able to toil and

keep night vigils in wartime." And, Jones (1967, p. 35) notes

that: "To supplement their meagre diet they were encouraged to

steal food and punished if they were caught for being so clumsy."

33

Later, Jones (ibid, p. 35) also points out that among the brutal

tests a famous one involved the "game of stealing cheeses from the

altar of Artemis Orthia; the boys had to run a gauntlet of

flogging under which not a few died" (see Rose 1941, pp. 1-2 for

the opinion that this practice involved ritual theft and ritual

beating). Various valued qualities including stealing, deception,

and courage are also captured in the famous tale of the boy and

the fox cub, a story about a boy who allowed a stolen fox cub he

was hiding beneath his clothes to devour him rather than cry out

and reveal the theft. It should be appreciated that in this case

deception (along with qualities such as competitiveness and an

hierarchical focus in other contexts) is quite compatible with the

theme of loyalty to the group because by guarding a fox cub his

companions had stolen and given to him the boy sought to protect

not just himself but others (i.e., a collective orientation).

Finally, Kennell (1995, p. 122) points out that: "Fox imagery

popped up at several points in Spartan education . . . Youngsters

were supposed to emulate the fox's cunning and become tricksters."

34

Perhaps, Xenophon best describes some of these practices and

the reasons for why theft was punished (Dillon and Garland 1994,

p. 167):

It is clear that anyone who is going to steal must both stay awake at night and deceive and wait in ambush during the day,and have spies prepared if he is going to steal something. So all this shows that he trained the boys like this because he wanted them to be more devious at procuring supplies and warlike. Someone might say, ‘Why, then, if he thought stealing a good thing, did he impose many strokes on one who was caught?' 'Because', I reply, 'whatever men teach, they punish whoever does not do it well. So, the Spartans punish those who are caught for stealing badly.’

Thus, if boys were severely whipped when caught, it was not

because of an opposition to such behavior, but rather was to serve

as an inducement to steal more effectively. That is why various

scholars suggest learning to steal was a part of what we would

refer to as the ritualized rearing system for youth and those such

as Powell (1988, p. 216) believe that this stress on deception and

stealing was connected, as we shall later argue, to adult military

deceit.

Having described the various ritualized activities and

arrangements associated with the rearing program for youth, we

should point out that this intense social process continued

35

through early adulthood. After age twenty, males could come into

contact with their future syssitia that they would fully become

members of at age thirty. These were the 'messes' or dining clubs

for adult Spartans (Schmitt-Pantel 1991, pp. 202-203). In this

early adult stage, Spartan males continued to engage in all the

ritualized practices we have described. Essentially, we find that

(Bryant 1996, p. 63):

Membership in the syssitia was the criterion for full citizenship, and it constituted the basic military and

social unit in Spartan life. Required to live communally in a barracks with fifteen or so comrades until the age of thirty, the Spartan spent most of his time honing his fighting abilities and perfecting formation tactics. Pederastic attachments were common, even encouraged, and apparently served as an essential practice in the socialization of youth and in establishing a comradeship of warriors.

During this time men could not live with their wives, only visit

them basically for the purpose of procreation.4 At age thirty a

man could live with his wife (and take over a kleros or plot of

land) but even then, for the next thirty years, he had to eat the

main meal of the day with his fellow comrades in the syssitia.

Marriage was approached in an instrumental fashion with the major

purpose being to produce citizen warriors. Of course, such social

arrangements served, at the same time, to significantly minimize

36

distractions to the ritualized practices of these male comrades

with their collective and militaristic focus.

In summary, boys and young adult males were exposed to a

comprehensive arrangement of highly ranked ritualized practices

occurring in all of the domains of interaction comprising their

daily lives. These spheres of interaction included dining,

training, and evening activities, in addition to ceremonial,

recreational and athletic events. Contributing to their high rank

was the conspicuous or salient quality of these practices, the

frequency with which they were performed, their similar (i.e.,

homologous) patterns and meanings (stressing, among other things,

militarism and competitiveness, obedience, hierarchical

distinctions, social unity, deceptiveness, and austerity), and the

availability of human and nonhuman resources for engaging in these

activities (e.g., physical and mental skills, materials for

weapons).

It should also be appreciated that a number of these

ritualized practices were special events removed from the normal

and more mundane activities of daily life. Since such activities

(e.g., certain sporting events, contests, events like the cheese

37

stealing game at Artemis Orthia) occurred only periodically,

involved large audiences, and were often ceremonial in nature,

this created a very salient or prominent ritualized practice that

dramatized core symbolic themes or models (see Wuthnow 1987, pp.

97-144). This, in turn, contributed to their high rank, that is,

their impact upon actors exposed to and/or engaged in these

activities.5

These special, dramatized events and the far more ubiquitous

daily rituals described in this paper totally defined the world of

young Spartans. These recurrent practices, social patterns, and

relational features of the rearing system created a powerful set

of symbolic models that conveyed a forceful message to all parties

about social reality. Stated somewhat differently, this

collection of highly dominant ritualized symbolic practices (in

terms of salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources)

significantly influenced some of the basic cognitive schemas and

action repertoires developed by young Spartans for interpreting

and constructing their own world. Such a condition directly led

to structural reproduction or the creation of isomorphic social

38

practices, identities, and structural patterns among these actors

embedded within the institutionalized system of rearing in Sparta.

SOCIAL DYNAMICS OF SPARTAN SOCIETY

While the major focus of this research is on the ritualized

rearing system and the mechanisms by which it operated, some

attention should also be given to the adult Spartan social world

(partially described in the Introduction) which, to a large

degree, was the product of this very system it sponsored. Given

space limitations, we will limit our discussion to several

features of the adult society and taken-for-granted world (i.e.,

meanings and practices) that were clearly influenced by this

training system.

To begin with, it was only at age thirty that a male adult

could live at home and manage his own household. From age thirty

to sixty he was required to serve in the military, engage in

weapon training and drill, and stay fit for service through

hunting. During this time period and after age sixty he continued

to dine in his syssition and could hold major state offices. One of

the most conspicuous features of this adult world was the

39

condition of homoioi that Hodkinson (1983, p. 243; see also Forrest

1980, p. 51) describes as follows:

This way of life put into effect at least three principles . . . first, uniformity, an innovation highlighted by Thucydides . . . who commented that it was the Lakedaimonians who first began to dress simply and that ingeneral the rich as far as possible adopted an equal style oflife with the many; secondly, the priority of collective interests overprivate ones, enshrined in the compulsory nature of the common way of life as well as in the particular regulations enforced within it; thirdly, an insistence upon conformity to those regulations, involving adherence to specified types of action and standards of behavior. The ideology underlying these principles is summed up by the term by which the Spartiates were known, the homoioi, variously translated as Equals, Peers, or Similars.

This common life style was expressed in a variety of ways.

For instance, adult Spartans met in the assembly, the political

institution in which they possessed the greatest equality (O'Neil

1995, p. 13). Moreover, personal and civic luxury, which could

create overt status differences among citizens, was frowned on.

And, as Kennell (1995, p. 130; see Gardner and Jevons 1898, p.

327; Figueira 1984) states: "Even the food carried a message: all

members of the phidition [common messes or dining clubs] were equal

in every way. Each was obliged to contribute the same amount of

unprepared food to the common larder, which the kitchen staff then

40

transformed into the notoriously unappetizing black broth (zomos)

and barley bread served at each meal." Furthermore, as Powell

(1988, p. 226) observes, not only did this common dining group

prevent the problem of conspicuous differences in diet or physical

stature arising between rich and poor, but the exclusion of the

symposion, the private drinking party, eliminated a social practice

which could have been used by some to reinforce a sense of social

distinction (as it did in other Greek societies where such

activities were engaged in by those from more elite and wealthier

strata).

These various adult practices clearly reflect not only the

themes of social unity and a collective orientation but also other

qualities that had been nurtured among younger Spartans such as

austerity and simplicity. In this regard, art-historians have

observed that artistic reliefs "reflect a Spartan physical type-

lean body, short rump, and long legs" which show the "effect of

hard upbringing and an austere life" (Holladay 1977, p. 121). At

the same time, many of these adult activities also reflected a

commitment to militaristic, aggressive, and physical pursuits that

literally never ended. Even at age sixty, when the Spartan was

41

finally released from military service, he still spent much of his

time in the "gymnasia, supervising children's exercises or the

wrestling bouts . . . It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say

that his whole life was devoted to war" (Flaceliere 1968, p. 246).

The ritualization of such practices, along with an ingrained

disciplined obedience to authority within their social world, was

manifested in various ways. Perhaps, the simple fact that Sparta

possessed such a successful army in Classical Greece is evidence

enough of how such an orientation defined their social life.

Indeed, the effectiveness of this army bears further testimony to

the enduring presence of such action repertoires and cognitive

schemas. The overall conclusion drawn by historians (Finley 1982,

p. 29) is that: "The Spartan army was better than any other, with

more stamina and greater manoeuvrability, thanks to superior

physical condition, better training and discipline, more

obedience. Thought seems to have been given to military

organization . . ." Indeed, it was not an uncommon belief among

potential foes that Spartans would never surrender in battle and

were too fearsome to be opposed.

42

Furthermore, examination of some of their actual military

practices reveals how effective the training system was.

Cartledge (1977, pp. 15-16) suggests that:

Warfare between massed phalanxes was not a graceful . . . affair, but required above all disciplined cohesion and unyielding physical and moral strength . . . fighting consisted chiefly of a concerted shoving akin to the tight scrummaging of modern rugby football . . . However, one area of demonstrable Spartan superiority was their careful observance of rhythm: in sharp contrast to their opponents' pell-mell rush, the Spartans advanced to the fray to the accompaniment of 'flutes and soft recorders'. Another was their system of subordinate command.

This sense of rhythm was enhanced by "marching songs and by the

energetic dances performed at the annual round of religious

festivals" (ibid, p. 17). More precisely, these coordinated

movements and efficient command system were grounded in a training

program which, beginning in youth, included ritualized music,

dance, and marching exercises of a military nature. McNeill

(1995), drawing upon Thucydides and Plutarch, makes a similar

observation about their ordered advances into battle. He (ibid,

p. 116) also points out that the Spartans "knew how to execute

flanking movements, and could close or open ranks so as to alter

the length of their front. Some maneuvers apparently required

43

separate files to follow the man in the front rank, thus breaking

the phalanx into a tactical unit of just eight men." The smooth

execution of such movements was, we argue (and which McNeill

generally suggests), the end result of an extensive system of

ritualized practice and drill that began early in the Spartan's

life.

The standardized nature of these practices, including

submission to hierarchical authority and commitment to the

collective order, can be found in various domains of Spartan life.

Such was certainly the case in regard to the dynamics by which

social order was preserved. Obedience to one's superiors ranged

from, among other things, a genuine respect for older citizens to

obedience to political officials, a point stressed by ancient

observers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon (Powell 1908, p.

238):

Spartan order involved a degree of obedience to the authorities which impressed both Xenophon and Plato.

According to Xenophon, at Sparta influential men took pride in their eager obedience towards officials, whereas in all other cities such men thought it beneath their dignity to seem to have any fear of those in office. Xenophon's "influential men" were presumably on the whole the wealthy, yet the ephors, [an important decision-making body] to whose near-tyrannic power they deferred, were often poor, as

44

Aristotle makes clear, at least at the time of their election.

And, just to mention one other related theme, hierarchical

distinctions in the form of social honor for the individual and

group were expressed through achievements arising out of

competitive activities (as emphasized by many of their childhood

experiences). In other words, victory and bravery for the Spartan

state in military contests brought glory and heroization for adult

citizens. Inscriptions on tombstones, songs, fame, state

commendations, prestige for relatives, or gifts were some of the

honors bestowed on those who, for instance, died in battle,

displayed exceptional bravery, or performed great deeds. "The

rewarding of personal merit in the upbringing [in contests,

competitions, physical and overtly aggressive struggles, etc.] was

thus continued into the lives of adults in the army" (Hodkinson

1983, p. 260).

Finally, we find that the importance placed on deceptiveness,

secretiveness, and an opportunistic orientation in the ritualized

activities of youth was reflected in a number of distinct social

practices in Spartan society. While taking different and

45

sometimes quite extreme forms, these activities were usually aimed

at protecting or enhancing the interests of Spartan society, i.e.,

they were grounded in a collective orientation. Various groups

were the objects of such practices, which were apparently quite

apparent to observers of the time (Powell 1988, p. 215):

From contemporary Greek sources we hear of deception worked by Spartan officials on their own citizen soldiers, on Sparta's subject population, the helots, and on enemy states.Xenophon records two cases in which a Spartan general, on learning of a defeat for Spartan forces elsewhere, announced it to his troops as a victory, to sustain morale. Thucydideswrites of the helots' being deceived with attractive promisesby the Spartan authorities, as a preliminary to massacre. The seditious Kinadon was removed from Sparta by means of a lie, according to Xenophon . . . each deception was supportedby careful arrangements and appears to have been successfullymaintained for as long as necessary.

Reflecting this orientation, Spartans exercised great care over

which non-Spartans were allowed entry to Sparta (such as allies)

and what they were allowed to see. Non-Spartans were also

occasionally expelled from the land, which some ancient Greeks

interpreted as a technique for protecting Spartan secrets.6

Consistent with this tendency to engage in such practices is

the argument that Spartans effectively utilized "visual

propaganda" or visual images to deceive and mislead others (ibid,

46

p. 239; see also Powell 1989). Such activities included military

tactics aimed at creating awe and fear in opponents, devices used

to generate contempt among Spartan soldiers for Helots and

enemies, and practices which sought to keep Spartan numbers a

secret from the Helots. Even their physical appearance was

manipulated in a way that would impress enemies. Spartan warriors

"could be distinguished at a glance from those of any other city

by two things: the color of their tunics, and they way they wore

their hair. Their tunics were red, or rather purple throughout,

the object being, it was said, 'to prevent bloodstains from

showing.' The Spartans also wore long hair . . ." (Flaceliere

1968, p. 247). The result was a very vivid and intimidating image

that most likely made these warriors appear even larger and more

fearsome than they already were.

These attributes, along with others qualities such as

aggressiveness and devotion to the state, were also quite evident

in the Spartans' dealings with Helots, especially when used as

techniques of domination. For instance, a periodic practice, the

krypteia ('secret'), involved Spartans going into the countryside

and murdering select Helots they found on the roads at night.

47

Such an organized activity was clearly aimed at intimidating

Helots into submission. Another incident also dramatically

illustrates the importance of deception in dealing with this

subordinate group. In 424 BC Sparta was under threat, both

externally from Athens and internally from the Helots who might

have defected. The Spartans announced they would give freedom to

those Helots who claimed they were prepared to provide exceptional

service to Sparta's war efforts. The actual Spartan reasoning for

making this offer, however, was that those men who possessed such

a high degree of confidence and toughness of character would be

the ones most likely to first attack their rulers. After

approximately two thousand men were "awarded" this honor, all were

mysteriously killed. The fact that this number approached the

number of Spartan males of fighting age in the society at that

time strongly suggests how important were (Powell 1988, p. 251)

"organization and secrecy" along with their other ritualized

dispositions towards militarism, deception, and opportunism for

the sake of their group.7

These were among the most notable aspects of Spartan society

resulting from the ritualized practices they engaged in or were

48

exposed to in their rearing system. Of course, in describing

their social orientation and social world it should be appreciated

that this ritualization process may have also engendered certain

limitations in the Spartan outlook and mode of behavior.

Hodkinson (1983, p. 267), in particular, suggests that due to

their training system, Spartan commanders were their least

effective when they encountered unfamiliar situations that

required independent decision-making:

The energy of a Brasidas or a Lysander had its roots in the qualities of keenness and competition which were officially encouraged. The upbringing, however, also promoted opposite . . . values which, I suggest, gave rise to the caution, fear and irresolute behaviour shown by many Spartiate commanders and their troops. The Spartiates training demanded conformity, discipline and strict obedienceto specific instructions. When initiative was required, it was usually towards a clearly defined goal and not to exceed certain specified limits. The young Spartiate was also brought up in a controlled and hardly changing environment . . . His performance was subject to supervision from all quarters . . . his position and performance were being continually reassessed. This bred doubt about his own ability and continual dependence upon superior authority to assure him that his actions were correct. None of this was the training appropriate for the independent action required of a military leader in command, often sole command, far fromhome. Hence the timid and cautious behaviour of so many Spartiate commanders, their difficulty in coping with unfamiliar situations and their rigid adherence to the precise instructions given them in Sparta, even when changed circumstances made those instructions no longer adequate.

49

In essence, caution and uncertainty were not uncommon responses to

novel and ambiguous situations, reactions which were attributable

to a training system stressing many of the ritualized schema-based

action repertoires discussed in this study, including obedience to

superiors within the group's social hierarchy.

Furthermore, it should be recognized that Spartan society

contained various problematic features and tensions which

interfered with the operation of the social system and which

contributed, in part, to the eventual downfall of the state.

These deviations from the ideal social system described in this

paper involved several components. Finley (1982, pp. 30-34) has

identified these elements which, briefly stated, included the

inadequate size of the Spartan army (resulting, for instance, in

enlisting Helots during major wars); financial corruption and

inequalities of wealth; structural tensions within the leadership

including the presence of a hereditary aristocracy; and too much

upward and downward social mobility. All of these aspects of

Spartan society placed significant counter-pressures on the social

system.

50

Nevertheless, as Finley observes, none of these elements were

able to destroy the society directly. For over two centuries

classical Sparta endured by maintaining a military and police

system which effectively dealt with both internal and external

threats to its stability. And, directly contributing to this

success were, we argue, the ritualized behavioral patterns and

social arrangements continually reproduced by its

institutionalized rearing system.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the theoretical formulation employed in this

paper focuses on the role ritual enactments play in the formation

and reproduction of practices and social structure in groups

embedded within a larger social environment. According to the

theory, four factors play a major role in the ritualization

processes that generate actions, relations, and structures similar

to those occurring in the larger milieu.

More precisely, we have argued that the theory of structural

ritualization increases our understanding of how male youth were

educated or trained in classical Sparta. A close examination of

historical evidence shows that five key qualities were cultivated

51

in and organized the social perceptions and relationships of youth

and young adults. This was the case because these individuals

were constantly exposed to and engaged in ritualized practices in

the rearing system emphasizing certain distinct themes that led,

in turn, to a reproduction of these behaviors and social structure

in their embedded world. Such a social process played a central

role in the creation and perpetuation of the adult Spartan social

order, a militaristic arrangement and way of life which was able

to successfully deal with external and internal threats from enemy

states and Helot slaves for several centuries. The explanation

for how this process occurred emphasizes the role of ritualized

symbolic practices in daily life and the importance of salience,

repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources for determining the

rank of such practices in a social milieu.

This investigation represents the first focused analysis of

the Spartan system of rearing and its consequences utilizing this

theoretical perspective (or, for that matter, any sociological or

social psychological theoretical framework). As such, it provides

an exemplification of the theory. Such a use of the theory, we

believe, better enables us to understand how this ancient social

52

system operated while, at the same time, increasing our confidence

in the ability of this formulation to explain how the ritualized

practices of actors are integrally involved in the structuring of

social life.

Of course, in assessing the merits of this account of a

historical phenomenon various criteria exist. In addition to

plausibility, which is concerned with the whether the account

makes sense of historical details (which we would suggest this

account does), the comparative and unique explanatory content of

the account may also be evaluated. Comparative explanatory

content addresses whether the account is consistent with more of

the historical details than alternative accounts while unique

explanatory content asks if there are details explained that are

not consistent with or predicted by other accounts. In the case

at hand, no prior detailed alternative account exists that may be

used for comparison. However, it is possible to construct

alternative accounts that make certain predictions (or interpret

certain details in ways) that conflict with those of structural

ritualization theory. Given space limitations, several

53

abbreviated alternative accounts of Spartan rearing practices and

social dynamics may be briefly outlined and compared.

One candidate for comparison is exchange or rational choice

theory (e.g., Homans 1974). This approach emphasizes the

importance of self-interest and individual judgments concerning

the utility or relative value of behavioral choices. Generally

speaking, such a perspective leads to the prediction that actors

would normally be inclined to seek greater rewards for themselves

and make fewer sacrifices for the group. In other words,

individual calculation should undermine a rearing system that

denies individual gratification to the extent found in Sparta. A

much weaker collective orientation might be expected. It should

be recognized, however, that various versions of exchange and

rational choice theories exist. Consequently, it would be

advisable to focus on more specific formulations.

One such formulation is the power-dependence exchange theory

of Emerson (1962, 1972a, 1972b). One of the key assumptions of

this theory is that when social systems or relations are

unbalanced in the sense that some actors or units posses high

degrees of power and other units are dependent upon the former

54

this sets into motion processes aimed at achieving balance in the

exchange relations that exist between these parties. From the

perspective of this analytical framework Spartan society (or the

state) possessed very high power while each individual actor was

extremely dependent upon the state. This was an unbalanced power

dependent relation that should have, according to the theory, led

to balancing processes or strategies to reduce or eliminate this

power differential. Instead, we find that the Spartan social

system as we know it basically maintained itself for several

centuries. A rigid, unbalanced structural (power-dependent)

relation existed between individual actors and the corporate body

for an extended period of time. Such a situation is not easily,

if at all addressed, by this exchange formulation. It is,

however, explained by structural ritualization theory.

Another candidate for comparison is Marxist theory (Marx

1967, 1970). With its focus on class conflict and domination the

Marxist perspective emphasizes how the tendency exists in

societies for power and economic resources to become concentrated

in an elite or privileged class that exploits other strata. Such

a dynamic describes the basic processes that operate in and

55

generate structural inequalities in societies, past and present.

Following the logic of this approach one might have anticipated

that over time rulers within Spartan society would have

increasingly accrued greater amounts of power and wealth leaving

less and less available to the rest of the large proportion of

male citizens. In other words, one might expect to find a

significant diminution of “equality” and collective orientation

among male citizens. Reflecting this development one would also

expect to find that the collective rearing practices of Sparta

would have been severely weakened if not completely eliminated.

Instead, we find, consistent with the explanatory logic of

structural ritualization, that the unique collective rearing

system and social arrangements of Sparta endured for many years.

In this regard it is worth noting that such was the case even if

certain individuals (i.e., sons of kings) were not raised in the

agoge. Apparently, the ritualized rearing practices and collective

orientation (along with the other ritualized qualities that

defined what it meant to be a Spartan) were strong enough to limit

the degree to which internal social exploitation and domination

developed within this society.8

56

Finally, whatever the respective merits of this theory’s

account of Spartan rearing practices and social processes, we

would emphasize that this does not preclude further elaboration of

the theory. Actually, one possibility for further development and

extension of the theory has been briefly noted in this paper,

i.e., the idea that ritualization involves an element of

legitimation. It is quite likely that ritualization can serve as

the source for legitimating beliefs that solidify and strengthen

the social orientations and arrangements of a group (such as

Spartan males). Such a point seems especially relevant since, as

has been pointed out elsewhere (Knottnerus forthcoming), ritual in

contrast to routine (or habit) is an expressive act. It is

engaged in for the purpose of communicating symbolic messages.

For this reason it is a very social behavior, although the manner

in which this social quality is realized very likely varies among

different ritualized practices and in different situations. Given

its expressive and social nature, one important component of a

ritualized symbolic practice would be legitimation. Future work

will, therefore, seek to address this issue focusing on various

questions such as what are the conditions that may facilitate or

57

impede the development of rituals and legitimating beliefs in

different social milieus.9

Theoretical extensions such as these and related research

will, however, have to await future development. Here, attention

has been first directed to the impact on actors of certain

dominant social behaviors found throughout Spartan society.

Ubiquitous ritualized symbolic activities emphasizing social

unity, obedience, aggressiveness, simplicity, and deceptiveness

had, we have suggested, a profound impact on younger (and older)

Spartans even as they created a quite unique and imposing social

world of their own. That such was the case is understandable

given the distinct array of ritualized practices operating in

Spartan society and our recognition of the importance of

ritualization and social interaction in the construction of social

order.

58

NOTES

1. To elaborate on the second and third points, the “Spartan mirage” argument suggests that Plato, in the attempt to describe aperfect society in the Republic, chose Sparta, and possibly overstated its way of life. His interpretation had, in turn, an effect on subsequent non-Spartan historians of Sparta (some of which are separated by centuries) such as Plutarch, Polybius, and Athenaion Politeia. What this presumably resulted in is a situation inwhich what is known about Sparta is less than certain. In regardto the latter issue, particularly as it concerns Spartan politicalhistory and relations with other Greek societies, Spartan kings and generals sometimes opposed each other in factions, with some, such as Pausanias in 379-77 BC and Lysander in the early part of the fourth century BC, diverging from the Spartan way of life described by Plato.

2. A third group, the perioikoi ('dwellers about'), also lived in Sparta. While our knowledge of this group is limited, we know that they were semi dependent on the Spartans and occupied an intermediate position between the Helots and the Spartans (socially and in the location of their communities). They carriedout a great deal of the craft and trade activity of the country and, while not considered citizens of Sparta, occupied an important role in the social system.

3. This observation is also relevant because it implies that a very different ritualized rearing system existed in Athens emphasizing a different or partially different set of qualities. One of the major differences involved an emphasis on the individual (and the unique features of the actor) rather than social unity and the collectivity. Kennell (1995, p. 123-124) states: "Unlike Spartan boys, Greek youths on the whole lived their lives as individuals except on special occasions like civic festivals, when they participated en masse. At such times, even democratic Athens presented itself as a composite of blocs definedby status, kinship, or age, rather than as a community of individual people . . . but when the celebration was over, these bodies dissolved back into the welter of daily life."

59

An interesting question, we believe, is whether the ritualized rearing system of Athens differed in its goals and practices from Sparta and did this lead to corresponding differences in the adultsocial order. An investigation of these two societies might shed light on this question, while providing comparative evidence for assessing the arguments of the theory of structural ritualization. 4. While pederastic relationships between adult warriors and youthwere fairly common, some uncertainty surrounds this issue since historians differ in their assessments of the degree to which suchrelationships occurred and their exact nature. Whatever their magnitude and exact form, generally speaking, such ritualized activities highlighted and reinforced several of the key themes expressed by other ritualized practices. At the very least, such attachments would have emphasized the importance of devotion and loyalty to one's fellows (and the collective as a whole) and commitment to the militaristic way of life that male adults and youth shared. It is also worth noting that while individuals could marry before leaving the agoge ceremonies existed in which women were made to look like men and consummation took place in the dark. Although such ritualized practices may not have been as highly ranked as other activities described here they were homologous in that they emphasized and reinforced the ideas that collectively males possessed a special status and marriage and sexual/intimate relations between women and men were secondary to the collective ties binding male comrades. 5. The recognition that some of these activities were events removed from the mundane activities of daily life raises a basic question concerning the dynamics of rituals: What makes rituals powerful? Stated somewhat differently, which are more powerful, daily rituals or special, periodic ritual enactments such as festivals, ceremonies, or athletic events? And, what are the mechanisms by which these ritualized practices operate and exert their influence? These issues raise both theoretical and empirical concerns. For instance, it would be instructive to investigate situations where actors are exposed to or engage in rituals such as festivals or other special events expressing certain symbolic themes and daily rituals conveying different

60

themes. It might then be possible to determine which type of ritual exerts the greatest influence on social actors.

6. It should be pointed out that sons of kings (i.e., future kings) were exempt from the agoge. It could, therefore, be argued that acts of deception in foreign policy, which would have been formulated to a significant degree by a king, were not the direct result of an emphasis on craftiness in the agoge. Aside from the fact that such decisions and ultimately the implementation of themmay have involved various individuals of different ranks it shouldalso be appreciated that even kings may have been influenced by the ritualized behaviors, ways of thinking, and overall orientation exhibited by their fellow Spartans. Recent experimental research (Sell, Knottnerus, Ellison, and Mundt 2000) has shown that group leaders will transform their own groups in the image of groups (characterized by distinct ritualized behaviors and procedures) they have observed for only a few minutes. This occurs even though there are no incentives for particular rituals and procedures, and even though the observed groups are not involved in tasks similar to the tasks given to theleader and his group. Given such findings, it seems quite plausible that even kings could have been profoundly affected by the ritualized practices they were exposed to on a daily basis in the relatively closed and compressed social world of Sparta.

7. Due to gaps in the historical record, our understanding of the Helots is not complete. Based upon what we know, their relationship to the Spartans was of a rather complex nature. While capable of resistance and revolts against the Spartans, who could obviously be quite brutal, some sense of trust and security also apparently existed which made it possible for the Helots to be deceived by their rulers. Contributing to this condition was the fact that Helots were sometimes rewarded, given privileges, provided certain economic/material benefits, and in some cases allowed to achieve higher social status by participating in Spartan military ventures.

8. This discussion of the respective merits of alternative explanatory accounts in this particular setting is not meant to

61

suggest in any way that perspectives such as these emphasizing therole of conflict, exchange, and exploitation in society are unimportant. We believe they are extremely valuable and that ideas from such approaches can be productively integrated with elements from structural ritualization theory to better understandhow, for instance, power, rituals, and culture may be interlinked and act to create and reinforce structured inequalities in certainsocial contexts (for research that has begun to address such issues see, for example, Varner and Knottnerus forthcoming).

9. These points also raise another set of questions dealing with the differences between and possible linkages between rituals and routines. While the two, as indicated, are distinct it is quite likely that under certain circumstances each could lead to and/or influence the other. More precisely, it is conceivable that undercertain conditions, ritualized symbolic practices (possibly containing very explicit legitimating beliefs) could emerge from routine (or habit). On the other hand, it is possible that under certain conditions, ritualized symbolic practices (perhaps possessing very well developed legitimating beliefs) could become routinized (or mere habit). In future work, we intend to empirically and theoretically examine this issue.

62

REFERENCES

Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

Bolger, Robert R. 1969. "The Training of Elites in Greek Education." Pp. 23-49 in Governing Elites: Studies in Training and Selection, edited by Rupert Wilkinson. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. London: Cambridge University Press.

Brewer, John and Albert Hunter. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryant, Joseph M. 1996. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cahnman, Werner J. and Alvin Boskoff. 1964. "Sociology and History: Reunion and Rapprochement." Pp. 1-18 in Sociology and History: Theory and Research, edited by Werner J. Cahnman and Alvin Boskoff. New York: Free Press.

Cartledge, Paul. 1977. "Hoplites and Heroes: Sparta's Contributionto the Technique of Ancient Warfare." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 97:11-27.

_____. 1978. "Literacy in the Spartan Oligarchy." The Journal of HellenicStudies 98:25-37.

_____. 1979. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300-362 BC. London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

63

Chrimes, K. M. T. 1952. Ancient Sparta: A Re-examination of the Evidence. New York: Philosophical Library.

Collins, Randall. 1981. "On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology." American Journal of Sociology 86:984-1014.

_____. 1987. "Interaction Ritual Chains, Power and Property: The Micro-Macro Connection as an Empirically Based Theoretical Problem." Pp. 193-206 in The Micro-Macro Link, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch, and Neil J. Smelser. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

De Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. 1972. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Dillon, Matthew and Lynda Garland. 1994. Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates (c. 800-399 BC). London: Routledge.

Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage.

Durkheim, Emile. [1915] 1965. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. NewYork: Free Press.

Elias, Norbert [1939] 1978. The Civilizing Process. Part I, The History of Manners. New York: Pantheon.

Ehrenberg, Victor. 1964. The Greek State. New York: W. W. Norton.

Emerson, Richard M. 1962. “Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review 27:31-

41.

_____. 1972a. “Exchange Theory, Part I: A Psychological Basis for Social Exchange.” Pp. 38-57 in

Sociological Theories in Progress, Volume 2, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

64

_____. 1972b. “Exchange Theory, Part II: Exchange Relations and Networks.” Pp. 58-87 in

Sociological Theories in Progress, Volume 2, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Figueira, Thomas J. 1984. "Mess Contributions and Subsistence at Sparta." Transactions of the American Philological Association 114:87-109.

Finley, M. I. 1963. The Ancient Greeks: An Introduction to Their Life and Thought.New York: Viking Press.

_____. 1982. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. New York: Viking Press.

Fitzhardinge, L. F. 1980. The Spartans. London: Thames and Hudson.

Flaceliere, Robert. 1968. Daily Life in Greece at the Time of Pericles. New York: Macmillan.

Forrest, W. G. 1980. A History of Sparta: 950-192 B.C. London: Duckworth. Gardner, Percy and Frank Byron Jevons. 1898. A Manual of Greek Antiquities. London: Charles Griffin and Company.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Guan, Jian and J. David Knottnerus.1999. "A Structural Ritualization Analysis of the Process of Acculturation and Marginalization of Chinese Americans." Humboldt Journal of

Social Relations 25:43-95.

65

Harley, T. Rutherford. 1934. "The Public School of Sparta." Greece and Rome 3:129-139.

Hodkinson, Stephen. 1983. "Social Order and the Conflict of Valuesin Classical Sparta." Chiron 13:239-281.

Holladay, A. J. 1977. "Spartan Austerity." The Classical Quarterly New Series 27:111-126.

Homans, George. 1974. Social Behavior. Revised Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hooker, J. T. 1980. The Ancient Spartans. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Huxley, G. L. 1970. Early Sparta. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Jones, A. H. M. 1967. Sparta. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

Kennell, Nigel M. 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education & Culture in Ancient Sparta. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Kertzer, David I. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Knottnerus, J. David. 1997. "The Theory of Structural Ritualization." Pp. 257-279 in Advances in Group Processes, Volume 14, edited by Barry Markovsky, Michael J. Lovaglia, and Lisa

Troyer. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

_____. 1999. "Status Structures and Ritualized Relations in the Slave Plantation System." Pp. 137 -147 in Plantation Society and Race Relations: The Origins of Inequality, edited by Thomas J. Durant, Jr. and J.David Knottnerus. Westport, CT: Praeger.

_____. Forthcoming. “Agency, Structure and Deritualization: A Comparative Investigation of

66

Extreme Disruptions of Social Order.” In Recent Issues in Social Theory: Structure, Culture and History, edited by Sing C. Chew and J. David Knottnerus. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Knottnerus, J. David, David L. Monk and Edward Jones. “The Slave Plantation System from a Total Institution Perspective.” Pp.17-27 in Plantation Society and Race Relations: The

Origins of Inequality, edited by Thomas J. Durant, Jr. and J. DavidKnottnerus. Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Knottnerus, J. David and Frederique Van de Poel-Knottnerus. 1999. The Social Worlds of Male and Female Children in the Nineteenth Century French Educational System: Youth Rituals and Elites. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Lazenby. J. F. 1985. The Spartan Army. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.

Lukes, Stephen. 1975. "Political Ritual and Social Integration." Sociology 9:289-308.

Marrou, H. I. 1982. A History of Education in Antiquity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Marx, Karl. 1967. Capital. New York: International Publishers.

_____. 1970. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, translated by S. W.

Ryazanskaya. New York: International Publishers.

McNeill, William H. 1995. Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Oliva, Pavel. 1971. Sparta and Her Social Problems. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert & Prague: Academia.

Ollier, Francois. 1973. Le Mirage Spartiate: Etude sur l’dealisation de Sparte dans l’antiquite

67

greque de l’origine jusqu’aux cyniques et Etude sur l’idealisation de Sparte dans l’antiquite greque du debut de l’ecole cynique jusqu’a la fin de la cite. New York:Arno Press.

O'Neil, James L. 1995. The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Powell, Anton. 1988. Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 BC. Portland, OR: Areopagitica Press.

_____. 1989. "Mendacity and Sparta's Use of the Visual.” Pp. 173-192 in Classical Sparta: Techniques Behind Her Success, edited by Anton Powell. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Rawson, Elizabeth. 1969. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought. Oxford,London: Oxford University Press.

Rose, Herbert Jennings. 1941. "Greek Rites of Stealing." Harvard Theological Review 34:1-5.

Sealey, Raphael. 1976. A History of the Greek City States ca. 700-338 B. C. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Sell, Jane, J. David Knottnerus, Christopher Ellison, and Heather Mundt. 2000. "Reproducing

Social Structure in Task Groups: The Role of Structural Ritualization." Social Forces 79:453-475.

Schmitt-Pantel, Pauline. 1991. "Collective Activities and the Political in the Greek City." Pp. 199 -213 in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, edited by Oswyn Murray and Simon Price.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tigerstedt, E. N. 1965. The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, Volume I. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.

68

_____. 1974. The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, Volume II. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

_____. 1978. The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, Volulme III. Uppsala, Sweden: Almlquvist & Wiksell International.

Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Varner, Monica K. and J. David Knottnerus. Forthcoming. “Civility,Rituals and Exclusion: The Emergence of American Golf During the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.”

Sociological Inquiry.

Warner, W. Lloyd. 1959. The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans (Yankee City Series). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

69