The premier sociologist of slavery is still Orlando Patterson, on the strength of his magnum opus, Slavery and Social Death. One of the reasons that Patterson’s work is so valuable is that he demonstrated that any attempt to define a slave as a person whom is treated as a piece of property is only going to come to a dead-end. Instead, Patterson offers up the definition of a slave as a person who is socially dead, which he further clarifies as a person who is incapable of accruing honor in a particular society. Such lack of honor is not the result of a slave’s lack of trying, but because the society of the slave-owner is one in which they decide not to recognize neither the slave’s inner feelings that lead them to pursue honor nor their attempts to seize honor for themselves. In other words, slavery is a dynamic, rather than static relationship. For in order to deny a slave from accruing honor, slave-owners have to adopt a number of different strategies.
One of the reasons that the study of slaves in antiquity is so complex is the simple range of slaves in Greece and Rome, most especially in the Imperial Period. For during this time there were many slaves who worked in the fields and provided Romans with the cheap bread that prevented revolution. Also during this time there were very powerful slaves, such as Narcissus, who was a freedman but nonetheless the right-hand man of the emperor Claudius. Narcissus got to that position because of the work that he had done for the emperor as a slave. In other words, he was a slave who nonetheless had a great deal of power.
The question becomes therefore, if had that much power, does it make sense to insist that he also did not have honor? Patterson is aware that if not, then his whole definition of slavery become vulnerable to attack. And indeed, he lists a number of reasons by which we can think through Narcissus’ career as a slave as when he did not have honor, but for me the most persuasive reason has to do with agency and representation. For as a slave of Claudius, Narcissus was the emperor’s representative, empowered to carry out his business. As a result, even if Narcissus engages in activities that would normally require Roman society to recognize him as honorable, that honor is easily attributed back to his master. This issue of representation also helps makes sense of some of the more contradictory aspects of Narcissus’ time as a slave, that is, he had a great deal more power than many Roman citizens. Representation again clarifies this, as Romans would understand that Narcissus’ power was not his own, but rather was contingent on his relationship with the emperor. A powerful slave is not a contradiction, but rather what one expects from a powerful slave-owner.
One of the reasons that the study of slaves in antiquity is so complex is the simple range of slaves in Greece and Rome, most especially in the Imperial Period. For during this time there were many slaves who worked in the fields and provided Romans with the cheap bread that prevented revolution. Also during this time there were very powerful slaves, such as Narcissus, who was a freedman but nonetheless the right-hand man of the emperor Claudius. Narcissus got to that position because of the work that he had done for the emperor as a slave. In other words, he was a slave who nonetheless had a great deal of power.
The question becomes therefore, if had that much power, does it make sense to insist that he also did not have honor? Patterson is aware that if not, then his whole definition of slavery become vulnerable to attack. And indeed, he lists a number of reasons by which we can think through Narcissus’ career as a slave as when he did not have honor, but for me the most persuasive reason has to do with agency and representation. For as a slave of Claudius, Narcissus was the emperor’s representative, empowered to carry out his business. As a result, even if Narcissus engages in activities that would normally require Roman society to recognize him as honorable, that honor is easily attributed back to his master. This issue of representation also helps makes sense of some of the more contradictory aspects of Narcissus’ time as a slave, that is, he had a great deal more power than many Roman citizens. Representation again clarifies this, as Romans would understand that Narcissus’ power was not his own, but rather was contingent on his relationship with the emperor. A powerful slave is not a contradiction, but rather what one expects from a powerful slave-owner.