Senior Seminar. Let’s talk about some of the juicier parts of Book V of The Republic. Among other things, Socrates says that in his ideal state “the wives of our guardians are to be common” — that is, the women are to be shared among the men. Monogamy is out, to be replaced by a sort of state-controlled promiscuity designed to promote a eugenicist agenda. And that’s not all. The guardians’ “children are to be common” as well, so that “no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent” (124).
How do you like those for family values? And it just gets worse. The rulers are supposed to “invent some ingenious kind of lots” to make it appear as if women are being matched up with men at random, even though the process is actually being controlled by the rulers in such a way as to match the strongest and smartest men to the strongest and smartest women. That way, when the less worthy men find themselves always hooking up with the less worthy women, they’ll blame their bad luck instead of the rulers (127).
This lottery system will only be used for women aged 20-40 and men aged 25-55. After that, the guardians will be allowed “to range at will,” provided that any women who wind up getting pregnant while thus, um, ranging are under “strict orders” to get an abortion (128).
What else? Socrates also argues against individual privacy (129) and for the participation of children in war (134) and…but you get the picture. And all this is on top of Socrates’ argument in favor of censorship.
Remember, Socrates is describing the ideal state in which he believes true justice is to be found.
Okay. We’re reading The Republic to understand its influence on utopian and dystopian literature and film. What do you think so far? Does it strike you as a better blueprint for a utopia, a dystopia, or an anti-utopia?
Is Socrates insane?
Wednesday, January 21
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This entire system stinks of a very rotten anti-utopia to me. The lottery for determining marriage renders the people helpless, ignorant puppets in the hands of the government in what is arguably one of the greatest of human experiences, love. The separation of children from mothers (and what exactly, might I add, does he mean by putting the "offspring of the inferior" away in "some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be" (127)!? THAT sounds wholly ethical...) and the mass "anonymous breast-feeding" (described on page 127) removes females from the very meaningful experience of motherhood, and the female body becomes nothing more than mere property of the State, an empty vessel for pumping out "good little citizens" (page 128 makes it clear the women will "bear children TO the state"). All human aspects of life become horribly warped as the individual's obligation to the State undermines any sort of personal choice. I understand that by doing these things, Socrates is trying to create an extremely powerful sense of community, but love and marriage and parenthood (as far as I understand them) are not things that can be made completely public without destroying the human element that makes them what they are. People are not completely rational, emotionless automatons (despite how Socrates might WANT them to be), and some “noble lie” spread by the government to keep the people completely subdued is not going to change that.
In order to create the perfect society it is necessary to bring the lives of the people together as a single unit of governance. It appears that for the greater good that eugenics and a commonwealth and men women raised under the guise of equality. If the emotions of the members of society are removed than the system seems perfect. The interests of the state which are vast and can appear soulless. It is not Socrates goal to create a utopia that meets our modern lives which are fractured down to our very essence. Our modern sensibilities are mere fractals and who is to say that our beliefs are the correct. The system described may even have merit. Simply because it is strange yes even horrible to us. These systems all are useful and fulfilled you have only to look to your neighbor. As the system is merit based all the members have the ability to shift from class to class based entirely upon their own merit. It is our opinion due to our social norms. The true equality and Justus however skewed in terms of the gender issues. It is not acceptable to deem women as inferior baby suckling tools. Socrates distaste for the working class is note worthy as they hold the lowest position in the societal structure but however they offer the means to equip and support the upper classes. His structure relegates contempt for the common man. The working class is in his opinion the keystone to overabundance war and death. The ability for the class of the producers to be the lowest class the artisans to be subjects to the whims of the philosopher kings is madness. The terms that are laid out through his reason fails to take into account the petty continence of sentient beings. His reason would not function as his single elemental style of thought his reason fails to recognize the other unique elements that make us human beings. His skewed logic would end in disaster and doom for his utopia as the philosopher kings reason and platitudes atrophy the warrior class incites violence and the artisans suffer on until they revolt.
Well, I think that thanks to the technological advances that have not only improved our way of life but also brought us in-vitro fertilization and baby formula, Socrates idea of the ideal state may not be too hard to bring to fruition, and much more painlessly than he'd imagined it. Once the process of extra-uterine fetal development is perfected, society might indeed be able to raise legions of anonymously-parented children for it's military, workforce and general needs. All that without having to be pestered with troublesome emotional bonding that might keep us from pursuing and really enjoying the vapid sensory and physical satisfaction that is so much the focus of modern life.
Of course, though this plan evidently appealed to Socrates' sensibilities, it seems rather to smack of anti-utopianism to me...
I definitely think Socrates's idea is anti utopian. The citizens' lives are completely planned. The women have no choice in who they marry, or who is allowed to have sex with them. The inability for a mother to take up her own child would be devastating to most women. It seems as though Socrates wants to make robots instead of humans, no feeling of love for their spouses, and not being able to openly love on a biological child would make the guardians unreal, unhuman. They would only be expected to think logically and not with their feelings.
Snoopy
This is a clear blueprint for a disgusting ant-utopia. There is no freedom whatsoever, no choices, only illusions presented by the government.
Women are looked at as commodities, that can be bought, sold, and traded, at least that's my interpretation. The ingenious lots proposed are clearly in line with the thought of an anti-utopia.
This whole book also has some heavy contradictions so far. I mean, he wants to censor evil literature about evil gods, and evil people, so children won't learn violence and the likes..yet he is ready to send them to war.
I feel like I'm reading Ecclesiastes after just finishing the radically inspiring Sermon on the Mount.
This idea of eugenicism is still occurring today, maybe not as blatantly as it once was, but still occurring nonetheless. A quick search will find a number of dating websites for ‘perfect’ genes - although now it’s more about brains than brawn. There are even sites where you are judged before you can join (www.BeautifulPeople.net).
But we can go beyond this beauty nonsense - how about the idea of the super soldier? The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (http://web.mit.edu/ISN/index.html) is working to “enhance soldier survivability”. Certainly this means in the near future better equipment, materials, and weapons. But when will the genetics come into play? This research is currently being worked on and studied, and will in a short time be used in the battlefield.
Was Socrates all that insane in suggesting genetics be used as a starting point for choosing a mate? When it comes to the betterment of the state as a whole, it makes sense that only the strong and intelligent survive, are bred, and produce more strong and intelligent beings. For the state to reach its full capacity of thought and power the weak and unintelligent cannot be in the way to slow the process down. For a utopian society to be successful, eugenicism is a must. Only strong, smart, beautiful people allowed!
All of the greats are insane, and I stand by that.
But let's look at the bright side of his argument. The strongest women being matched with the strongest men? Awesome. The dating world is crap anyway. At least instead of going through the legalities of divorce, I can better accept the marriage through my stupidity. And hey, no worries for women, we are going to get our fair round of being shared anyway!
And kids? Well, I'm glad not to know my child. Then he (only he, the 'she' is not a citizen with an opinion that counts) can't blame me for his crappy life. This is for sure a Utopia, at least applied to today's standards.
"Then when any one citizen experiences any good or evil, the whole State will make his case their own, and will either rejoice or sorrow with him?" (130)
Yes! What a fantastic support system! You tell me what to feel, and I will always be right! It's so simple! Just think of all those things we worry about that will be rid from our lives in this system: "For example, as the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy neccessaries for their household, borrowing then repudiating, getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands of women and slaves to keep--the many evils of which so many kinds of people suffer in this way are mean and obvious enough" (133) Lord knows I am sick of working so hard for my money just so I can provide for my family!?! And I'm lucky, I don't have a slave to take care of. Just tons of student loans.
Socrates is just thinking about the good of the community. What is wrong with that?
Post a Comment