Justice in the State: Comparisons between Plato’s Republic and the West. Essay 1: Nature, and the Differences between Men and Women

 The cultural debate in the West in the present time over differences between men and women is due, in part, to an attempt to establish a socialist state under authoritarian rule.  These are not unrelated matters.  On the one hand, a consideration of the natural capacities, activities, and pursuits of individuals has to do with questions of biology, examination of the merits people bring to their tasks, and observations of actual performances.  On the other hand, regulations may be placed over all this to serve the purposes of the state or, more likely, the authoritarian aristocracy, even to the point that people are required to advance a particular conclusion no matter what answers one finds to biological questions, results one receives while investigating individuals' merits, and what observations one has.  What is the relationship between cultural forces at work to reach certain conclusions and the state's control of these conclusions?

The answer to this question has to do with what sort of understanding one takes into the debates about the nature of government.  Is government for the people or is it for the ideal?  Is government of the people or of the state?  Is governing by the people or is it by the aristocracy?  Not only is the West experiencing a cultural revolution in many ways and all at once, it is also experiencing a revolutionary political challenge to democracy in favour of a more authoritarian aristocracy that has positioned itself as a moral force in government to accomplish socialist ideals.

This may be a new stage for the West in its development from monarchies to democracies to socialist aristocracies, but the questions around this development already presented themselves to Plato in 4th c. BC Athens.  With the failed experiment of democracy already behind him, Plato wrote The Republic to explore justice as an ideal and in an ideal state.  His spokesperson in the dialogue was his teacher, Socrates.  What Socrates suggests as the ideal, just state is an authoritarian, socialist state.  In this and subsequent essays, I would like to flush out what this involved for him and compare and contrast how this 'dialogue' is proceeding in the West today.  The questions are of particular significance for Christians as they negotiate the forces within a post-Christian culture and the forces of an aristocratic state that believes justice lies ideally within a socialist government.

In The Republic, Socrates first argues that the just state will not make distinctions between men and women, with one exception.  The proposed premise may be stated as follows: There is an equality of men and women in all matters, in their natural capacities and pursuits, except in their natural physical strength and in regard to which gender bears children.  Socrates' first argument is based on observations regarding natural capacities.  Men and women are just as capable at learning, acting, governing, and so forth.  For 4th c. BC Greece, this is a radical claim.  Even in democratic Athens, only male citizens cast a vote and could hold offices.  Socrates' first argument moves from an observation that men and women are equal in their natural capacities to an argument that they should be allowed equal pursuits or careers.  At this point in the argument, the hand of the state has not yet been shown: Socrates is making observations about nature.  To anticipate later discussion (in The Republic as well as in these essays), we might note that the control of education and the assignment of persons to their jobs will be state controlled in an aristocratic, socialist state.

The following quotations from Socrates in The Republic present his case for this first part of his argument.  In my view, his argument is essentially where feminist arguments stood in the 20th century, democratic West and where arguments in general stood during the post-Enlightenment Modernity of the West, when science ruled arguments in the university and arguments based on nature prevailed.  Arguments based on natural capacities and equal opportunity to pursue the same goals made sense in the cultural context.  Socrates says:

[453b] … ‘Can it be denied then that there is by nature a great difference between men and women?’ … ‘Is it not fitting, then, that a different function should be appointed [453c] for each corresponding to this difference of nature?’ … ‘How, then, can you deny that you are mistaken and in contradiction with yourselves when you turn around and affirm that the men and the women ought to do the same thing, though their natures are so far apart?’ … [5.454d] But if it appears [this is Socrates’ view] that they differ only in just this respect that the female bears [454e] and the male begets, we shall say that no proof has yet been produced that the woman differs from the man for our purposes, but we shall continue to think that our guardians and their wives ought to follow the same pursuits.” … [455d] … “Then there is no pursuit of the administrators of a state that belongs to a woman because she is a woman or to a man because he is a man. But the natural capacities are distributed alike among both creatures, and women naturally share in all pursuits and men in all— [455e] yet for all the woman is weaker than the man.” … [456a] … “The women and the men, then, have the same nature in respect to the guardianship of the state, save in so far as the one is weaker, the other stronger.” … [456b][1]

Thus, a natural argument based on observation concludes that men and women have nearly the same capacities and can contribute equally in the same pursuits in most situations.  In virtually every way regarding capacities and pursuits, there is no difference between men and women.  On several occasions, as noted above, Socrates makes the uncontested qualification that men and women are, of course, different in their physical strength.  He even says that this is the only way in which they differ.  However, he adds, as noted, that they also obviously differ in regard to who bears children and who begets children.

Our interest in further essays will be in how this starting point in Socrates' argument comes to be connected to his vision of justice and the state.  In this essay, the discussion is purely about nature, not social or political forces.  Our observation is that Socrates found observations about nature as foundational to what he would soon say about social engineering according to some ideal of justice.  Feminism, so far as it based its arguments in nature, could argue as Socrates did: observe that women have the same capacities and pursue the same ends as men--they are in these respects equal.  

Accepting the authority of conclusions based on observations of nature, one can still argue for a variety of distinctions having to do with natural differences between men and women in regard to their physical strength and child bearing capacities. Socrates' socialist, political interests, however, will soon undermine these, as the West’s movement from Modernist to Postmodernist assumptions has done.  In order to press the equality of men and women to its extreme position, Socrates will subsequently argue for a form of socialism that undermines the family, marriage, and the parent-child relationship.  Such social constructions are severed from any natural argument as much as possible.  As in Socrates' argument, so also in the West in the last half century, arguments for a feminist equality have morphed into an entirely different sort of argument that undermines arguments based on nature in the most profound ways.  Postmodernity rejects foundationalism, including arguments from nature, thus transferring arguments to humanly constructed ‘truths’ that support the authoritarian state’s version of justice.  When, in subsequent arguments, Socrates opens the door to this state authority, he will do so in a way that Western culture has done in moving from feminist arguments based in nature to justice as a moral construct under the control of the authoritarian state.



[1] Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6, trans.Paul Shorey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969).


No comments:

Return to Eden

 [A short story.] ‘Eve!   Wow!   Wonderful to see you after so long!   My badness, look at you!   How the hell did you get back in here?’   ...

Popular Posts