Senior Seminar. By now you should have read through Book IV of Plato’s Republic. Among other things, you should have noticed that, while The Republic is a work of philosophy (many consider it the work of philosophy) it is not structured mechanically as a series of conclusions drawn logically from a set of initial premises. Instead it is structured as a story, which has the advantage not only of making the argument more engaging but of letting us see how it emerges from the give-and-take of Socratic dialogue.
Also, like any good story, The Republic features strongly drawn characters (such as the calm and occasionally bemused Socrates and the hotheaded Thrasymachus). It also includes summaries of other stories (such as that of Gyges’ ring) and alludes frequently to the poetry of Homer and Hesiod. All considered, a very literary piece of philosophizing.
As for the philosophizing itself, Socrates quickly gets to the question of defining justice (5), but not until well into Book II does he begin to address the question of most interest to us as aspiring critics of utopia: the construction of the ideal state (40).
According to Socrates, war does not appear until the denizens of the state find themselves dissatisfied with the necessities of life and begin to pursue luxury, at which point war becomes “inevitable” (45) — a rather depressing thought, given our own society’s addiction to luxury.
A bit later Socrates gets to a question of particular importance: “How do justice and injustice grow up in states?” (48). Part of the answer, he argues, is through the teaching of impious literature. When children hear a story in which a god acts irresponsibly, he says, they will tend to act irresponsibly themselves; therefore, one of the first orders of business in constructing the ideal state is “to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only” (49).
Freedom of speech? None of that namby-pamby liberalism for Socrates!
So, is Socrates right that the pursuit of justice requires censorship? Or were America’s Founding Fathers — who like Socrates were trying to draw up rules for an ideal state — right to insist that censorship is inimical to justice?
Monday, January 19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Socrates idea of censoring the literature that children were allowed to hear was completely a dictatorship ideal. It not only prevents mothers and nurses the ability to read to their children their choice of literature, it prevents children from learning new ideas. Whether good or bad stories, there are good and bad people and there are good and bad events that will happen. Children can be prepared for things that happen in their life through the stories they hear. Our Founding Fathers were correct in thinking censorship was an "unfriendly act of aggression". Socrates idea would force the State to be like the man in 1984 who could hardly think for himself, because he was told what to do, what to read, and how to spend leisure time. Censorship is dangerous to any state, and I'm thankful our Founding Fathers were aware of the damaging outcome complete censorship would cause.
Snoopy
“…war does not appear until the denizens of the state find themselves dissatisfied with the necessities of life and begin to pursue luxury, at which point war becomes “inevitable”…” A quick comment on this - sounds rather like America to me. We had decent vehicles in the 1990’s, and then the SUV’s became popular. These were not necessary (how many Hummers have you seen in the mountains, crawling over rocks or crossing streams?) - they were, and still are, a luxury. These luxuries needed gas - and a lot of it. And war became inevitable.
Okay. Now, on to the topic at hand - is censorship inimical to justice. Certainly censorship cannot be part of a court trial where justice places her heavy hand over the proceedings. With censorship in this case, evidence or testimony that is not allowed would hinder justice - the truth would not be found. Censorship can play no role in the judicial system whatsoever.
But at a certain point, censorship has to play a role in our society. Maybe not as heavily as Socrates suggests by authorizing certain materials, but there has to be a rating system involved - much like the one in place in our current society. I believe certain materials should be rated - the content should be laid out ahead of time so people can choose to watch, read, or listen to that material. It basically boils down to a choice issue. If people are informed ahead of time that a movie depicts scenes of violence, and they still choose to watch it, they shouldn’t be surprised when they see it (let alone complain about it).
Yet the rating system falls into a trap of its own - who rates the material, and by what standards? Who sets the guidelines? Clearly a movie made in the 1980’s that is rated ‘R’ is not as ‘R’ rated as a movie in today’s standards. I believe this has something to do with changing morals, desensitization, and money.
The issue of utopia is at this point clashing heavily with the notion of individuality. A society has to reconcile its need for harmony (and in a utopia, perfect harmony) with the need for each person to feel free (and in a utopia, I believe it's absolutely necessary for one's free will to be absolutely authentic, not some synthetic illusion pulled over the eyes by a manipulative government--this would indeed be an anti-utopia). Censorship lands smack in the middle of this conflict. It's necessary for individuals to have free range for expression and development of identity, but it's also necessary that these individuals don't stomp all over their neighbors in the effort. Education is essential to this. A balance must be found between what is taught and allowed to be expressed and what is deemed unacceptable. Of course boundaries need to be put in place, but to think that you can control the private realm of thought and expression completely is absurd. The tedious lengths Socrates goes to to outline his censorship boundaries reek of paranoia and dangerous amounts of fear. He leaves no room whatsoever for personal choice, automatically assuming that humans will replicate whatever they see. Of course humans immitate the behaviors taught to them, but he totally fails to take into account the sense of morality humans apply to their decisions. Of course morality can be highly subjective and sketchy, but it's more important that a society agrees collectively upon a moral system and works to instill that within their children than totally neglect to present anything negative to them (which is totally impossible anyway).
I agree with the ideas presented by my classmates, to the extent that a degree of censorship is necessary to the moral stability of any society, as is a universally defined and accepted moral code for a society to function as a unit, with a united identity. I also agree that while blanket censorship is wrong, material which diverges to far from what the society deems as acceptable should carry some type of warning label advising citizens of just what content might be found offensive. Self-censorship ought to be the only form thrust upon a people.
As a parent, I believe it is important to expose your children to other cultures, beliefs, and viewpoints, as broadly as possible. However, it is important that they have a moral benchmark against which to compare what they see, so that they don't lose sight of their own personal or family identity. This is the right and responsibility of the parent, not the state. Kids ought to be insulated from some of the harsher realities of life while in their formative year, because, although these elements exist, too early an exposure might harm the kid's emotional stability, or give them the wrong idea about what is deemed acceptable by the society in which they are to interact, so they can be successful. Ultimately, though, this is the right of the parent and not the government.
As has been quite stated from the comments before me, I too agree with both positions to a certain degree.
I believe overall, Plato's censorship to shield children of harsh realities, feels like a dictatorship or an anti-utopia. Which brings to question, would part of his censorship eliminate the reality of "Special Time With Plato" in ancient Greece? So away from the digression, it probably is important to have some sort of censorship or ratiing system in our society. Children certainly should not be exposed to sexually explicit content at a young age, or graphic depictions of violence, or profanity.
However, the degree in which Plato proposes censorship is disgusting, and would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves. For justice to be present people citizens should be allowed to make their own choices and learn from those decisions. We must allow there to be room for tales of bad choices, to be told by mother and father to children, for how else would someone really understand the concept of morality? If people cannot choose what they wish to read to their children or the values they wish to instill in them, then it is clearly not an ideal state. It is only an illusional delusion.
As stated before, of course I agree with both Socrates and the Fathers--to an extent. There is a sweet combination of both their opinions that would make up a "Utopia". However, it usually that grey area that gets us into trouble.
Yes, parents are allowed to censor their children. But when is the age the censoring should stop? Eighteen? That's the legal age. Unfortunately, it's usually not children who are involved in the big crimes we worry about, ie stealing, murder, rape; all those fun things to watch on TV. Is it true that censoring children will therefore bring about moral, upstanding adults? Is it true that teaching children about the "bad things" will bring about moral, upstading adults?
Yes, we should be allowed to make our own decisions for the liberty and justice our country promises. But how often are the decisions made a violation to others liberty? Well, if nobody has liberty, then no one would have to worry about their liberty being violated! Freedom in the lack of freedom--now that's a Utopia!
Post a Comment