Chapters 4-8 have set out an interpretation of the means of social control by which Athenians regulated certain aspects of their sexual and religious activities. Building upon the preceding discussion of particular anthropological and social theoretical approaches to social action, this interpretation emphasized the complexity of the dynamic relation linking law, norms, practices, and ideology in a “face-to-face” society. Reversing this movement from a general discussion of social action to very specific inquiries into homoeroticism, adultery, impiety, and the like, this concluding chapter shifts back to a more abstract level and attempts to draw together some of the strands of argument developed earlier. Specifically, it suggests a fundamental connection between the ideology of Athenian democracy and the patterns of social control elucidated above. Further, it addresses the theoretical question of the role of ambiguity, conflict, and contradiction in social ideologies and practices, and argues that such contradiction is not to be understood as an “aberration,” but rather as a central characteristic of social systems and the practices which reproduce them.

Privacy, democracy, and the enforcement of morals

Modern Western political thought, conditioned by the liberal tradition, perceives an intimate connection between privacy and the enforcement of morals. Indeed, in contemporary American constitutional law, the development of a fundamental right to privacy has served as one of the principal means used to defeat legislation on moral matters.