Plato outlines his version of the ideal society in The Republic, a society which stems from a basic social structure dividing citizens into three specific categories. The Rulers and Auxiliaries defend the city and maintain this social structure; allowing it to theoretically operate without any monetary system. Craftsmen (or money-makers) at the bottom, meanwhile work solely for their own interests and do not have the inherent capacity to govern. The Happiness of the citizens flourishes when each person performs the duty or profession best suited for his or her talents. He notes that Craftsmen could feasibly change profession within their own class: give a cobbler a carpenter’s tools, and no great harm would result; however, should a cobbler be given the duty to rule, reminiscent of the Babylonian lottery, turmoil would result (59-60). The measure of how ‘just’ a society is wanes with any movement between these classes. For Plato a ‘just’ city consists of citizens who understand and dedicate their lives to their specific class.
Inconsistent with the American counterpart, Plato’s ‘just’ citizen would never be inoculated with the mantra of equal opportunity for every person. Americans are constantly bombarded with demands of self-improvement through education, skills, or connections in order to elevate their social status. Inspirational television commercials of former cashiers at McDonalds being promoted to regional managers or CEOs shatter the notion of rigid barriers between classes. Even in my home town a “Craftsman” who had been a firefighter his entire life achieved the office of mayor only a couple years ago. Thomas Friedman has a book titled, The World Is Flat, where he details the phenomenon of globalization brought about with the advent of the digital age. A global society necessitates a breadth of skills rather than depth in one craft. As some jobs die out with the streamlining of a world economy, workers must have the capacity to adapt and transition into other fields. Plato’s ‘just society’ does not or perhaps could not account for the demands of a modern society.
Although our society diverges from Plato’s ideals, it still exhibits some qualities he advocates. Looking at who has served in the national government, one can see family names such as Bush or Kennedy that stand out for their repetition. Is this a function of a ‘ruling class’ that is inherently born with the skills predisposing them to lead? Or could it be said that it is just a function of wealth and prominence that provides and perpetuates a cycle based on family name, a cycle that would not exist in Plato’s society that abandons all form of currency? By brandishing the idea of complete equality, American society may actually have fostered a sense of inequality, inequality of professions reinforced by a monetary system defining their worth. Anyone can be President, provided he or she has the wealth to receive a quality education and the political connections to get his or her name out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's true that, as opposed to Plato's idea of a perfect society, modern America has fostered and perpetuated the idea that everyone has an equal opportunity to attain any goal they set. This notion is the reason many people immigrate here. We even have a name for it: The American Dream.
ReplyDeleteBut the reality of it, as you insinuated, is that a person's ascribed social status (the reality he or she was born into) unfortunately has a much greater impact on how that person's life turns out. Though not impossible, upward social mobility is not nearly as easy to achieve as we would like to think.
So is American society—with its purported notion of equal opportunities for all that undoubtedly instills false hope in the majority of those who buy in to the American Dream—more just than Plato’s perfect society, in which everyone must be satisfied with his or her lot in life?
I believe we touched on the subject of "America fostering the idea that we are all equal essentially making us unequal" towards the end of class on Friday. I agree with that belief in the sense that yes, we think that being a ditch digger is a less important job than a corporate executive, ostensibly making the two people unequal. However, to answer Lindsey’s question, I think that America is more just than Plato’s perfect society in the sense that we have the ability to move up in class and social status. While it may not necessarily be an easy task, it is a step up from Plato’s city where upward social mobility is impossible.
ReplyDeleteIt's likely I could be applying this incorrectly, but I don't think the idea of social mobility is a valid example to use against Plato's system. I say this because, according to Plato, just people in the perfectly just society would have no desire for social mobility because they would be content with their place. A cobbler accepts his place with the Craftspeople because it is his ergon, and therefore what he knows is his specific work and will provide him with eudaimonia. It is possible for Craftspeople to achieve this flourishing happiness because they do their intended work, as do the Rulers and Auxiliaries. Plato's perfect/just society is based on this balanced, ordered state. There isn't a place for the American Dream in Plato's society, because we have the natural tendency to desire more than we have, which according to Plato would upset the order of a just society/soul.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Jane on this one, mainly because I believe that Plato's claim solely lies in that every person has their specific purpose/place in society so that they can contribute happily and consistantly. At the same time (as each person is made for their trade), HAPPINESS equals perfectly content-ness...essentially instilling a sense of peace/harmony/justice in all, ignoring any "want" of social mobility or finding happiness in material goods. I think the confusion in class is due to the fact that nobody would want to be dealt the Garbage Man card because of what we associate with being a Garbage Man: dirty job, probably minimum wage, not the best co-workers, and most likely going home to a modest house but money isn't abundant. People would lean more towards being a "leader" because wealth, power, confidence, and abundance is associate with that level of society. I think when considering Plato's explanation of justice in society, we must set aside our conceptions of how the world works... mainly by setting aside the fact that money makes the world go round by incentivizing, corrupting, and motivating.
ReplyDeleteWell the part of Plato's just city that eliminates social movement is the fact that there is no currency. Most of our jobs are framed in terms of annual salary, benefits, and coverage. If none of those existed, many people would feel much more comfortable taking a job that they would shy away from in our society.
ReplyDeleteWhere it really breaks down for me is that there is no system of exchange for anything. I may be pessimistic but it's extremely difficult to understand how people can coexist and take only the amount of food or goods they deserve. Also what happens in Plato's world if there was a famine, would everyone take their share, albeit a reduced amount, still?
I get what you're saying about the lack of an exchange system. The problem I think a lot of us have with understanding Plato's society stems from the fact that in his perfect world, people want for nothing. They don't aspire for higher social standing or want more goods/food than they have because they are balanced and therefore accept their place, and the amount of material goods that comes with it. This is obviously a tricky concept for us because it seems so unlikely, especially in our own society. How can people coexist in this permanently stationary this way? Granted, this is Plato's "perfect" society that is constantly balanced and just. So he would view a famine as society being unbalanced, and therefore unjust. So would everyone take their (reduced) share in such a case? If society is unbalanced/unjust, then so are the people, so I'm inclined to say no. So then does Plato's example only work as long as the city/soul is balanced?
ReplyDelete