The Eyes Of The People Analysis

Jeffrey Green’s book, The Eyes of the People, is an interesting and unique break from traditional democratic theory. It appeals to the ideal of plebiscitary democracy and acknowledges the reality of everyday citizens’ participation, or lack thereof. Green boldly steps away from the traditional Athenian concept of democracy on a mass scale that dominates modern democratic theory. He calls to attention the challenges of said model of democracy and gives the reality of modern citizenship. In doing so, he writes about a less active version of political involvement that he names the “ocular model” of participation. “The People” is used as a singular noun because, as Green writes, The People is not united as a single voice, but as a “gaze” (p. 11). He then turns from The People to leaders, advancing the notion that “candor” should guide democracy more than autonomy (p.13). After …show more content…
The current understanding of democracy is autonomy, in which The People both writes and votes on the law. Green refutes this norm by expressing how representative democracies are not run by an autonomous People, but instead by a consistent group of elites. These select few do not pursue the will of The People because there is little vocal unity on what The People prefers. Green calls on a paradigm shift for the “pursuit of democracy” in which a system is put into place that realizes the non-vocal tendencies of individuals today (p. 16). He then goes deeper into spectatorial political involvement by outlining the false assumption that “citizens are … [choice-making, speech making, legislating, active deciders of public affairs] (pp. 16-17).” This is the basis for Green’s ocular model, which gives power to the spectator and makes the game of modern democratic politics to be between and actor and a critical