The different discussions, each with its own bibliography except Feichtingers , assembled in this volume focus on eros as a metaphor for politics in terms of gender from philological, historical and archaeological points of view. The final product provides a fresh study comparing several related classical situations with modern facts. Unfortunately, the book in general lacks a theoretical basis or approach. Thus, without a theorization of the eros concept, 1 the book gives the impression that it treats the subject under consideration casually, that is, it deals with eros as a transcendant experience without either asking specific questions or providing clear answers.
Her main argument consists of the assumption that eros is, in a way, powerful because it has a subversive potential. This supposition is in opposition to traditional perspectives, in which abusing or disclaiming eros eventually constitutes controlling social mechanisms. For example, in the Ancient Greek world, women essentially were forced to sell their sexuality in matrimony, losing their power of reproductive choice in return for status at the side of their husband.
Furthermore, the betrothal of the woman actually took place between the father of the bride and the groom; thus, women were, in essence, objectified in the wedding-contract. The more prestigious the bride noble, wealthy and beautiful , and the greater the expense and effort to get her, the greater the public prestige of the groom that is, the perception of his virility and, thus, political power.
This social mechanism could change, however, if eros no longer worked as a culturally sanctioned device in order to affirm paternalism. For example, a passionate free citizen lover could be a slave to his slave girl. Similar is the threatening role of eros in politics.
The political man desires political power as a man who is in love, and he is able to violate norms in order to get it; likely, a man truly in love with a woman might be seen as unreliable for leadership cf.
