In the now global discussion on the sciences of the democracies (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/?s=🦋), the Ancient Greek hero Sisyphus has been mentioned at least four times (see the four essays below).

This is done, I think, for two reasons:

The first is because democracy, and the hundreds of other words across babel that users of the word "democracy" would recognise as being more or less democratic (and vice versa), have been inscribed by people with tens of thousands (or more) meanings over time and space.

The second is because democracy (and probably most of the other words hinted at in the first reason) is morphological. It is constantly being rearticulated, revised, given new meaning, and so forth, as people's experiences, contexts, circumstances, etc., change.

Some people leave records of their perceptions of democracy behind them in the form of cultural artefacts. For example in texts, architecture, sound and photography, and so forth. We can gather these and study them. If we try to "record" to "capture" people's living perceptions of democracy (because many people won't record their perceptions in artifactual formats), which is most often done through surveys, then our so-called "data points" (I prefer research partners) grows exponentially.

All of this is given to say that we have historical, contemporary and (probably) future data on democracy that is both immense in quantity and endless.

I won't spoil our game here with an answer of why I think this is a good thing and will, instead, invite you to give that answer.

What do you think? Why is "Sisyphus happy" here?

Essays that mentioned Sisyphus:

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-is-democracy-an-empirical-response-to-the-butterfly-collector/

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/lost-in-the-arcades-of-democracy/

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/science-of-democracy-and-the-owl-of-minerva/

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/selection-the-key-to-studying-democracy/