When the True City
Falls
Socrates states it right at the
beginning – we are not so clever. I am assuming he included himself in that
statement. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, he doesn’t truly believe that he can
help his friends figure out the mystery of which is better – justice or
injustice. However, to his credit, he states he cannot refuse his help, even
after a failed first attempt, as it would seem impious of him to refuse.
Therefore, his plan to “track down” justice and injustice [1] to fully
understand the truth about their benefits was to find it, justice or injustice,
in a larger object. Socrates’ logic says that if it can be found in the larger,
then likewise we should be able to find it within a smaller one, namely the
human soul. At the point it is found, it stands to reason that we will be able
to see which is more beneficial. The method proposed is to build a hypothetical
city, the larger object, from the ground up. From answering the question of why
a city is formed, to how many people are required, Socrates, with help, decides
why and how a city takes shape. The result is Socrates’ true city - the healthy
city. In this paper, I will explore the model of a city as it goes from healthy
to unhealthy, consider what is right or wrong considering the metaphor of
health, and contemplate whether a city can be healthy and unhealthy
simultaneously.
People have needs, both physically
and socially. Using the presuppositions that people are different from other
earthly creatures in that they are able create what they need rather than have
it supplied through their environment, and that people cannot survive without
each other, Socrates starts to build the city that will enable people to come
together to supply and meet their human needs. The basic needs of people
include food and fresh water, shelter, clothing or bodily protection from the
elements, safety for rest, and intimacy with others. Socrates and the others
determine those skilled crafters are to provide food, shelter, and clothing for
the entire city, rather than having each individual attempt to be an expert in
all the needed crafts. Further, this division of labor or specialization is key
to this city, as it allows each contributor, or producer, the opportunity to
best utilize their natural abilities while contributing to the needs of the
whole. As the city expands to include more producers, all the physical needs of
the people are met – food, shelter, and clothing – with producers being
supported by secondary producers, merchants, and wage-earners who contribute
the necessary tools and services needed for successful function of the city.
Socrates summarizes by recounting that “they’ll produce bread, wine, clothes,
and shoes…build houses…wear adequate clothing and shoes...” as well as cook,
feast, and drink from their produce, have sweet-smelling beds on which to
recline, give worship to their gods, and enjoy sexual intimacy without
exceeding their means. [2] He even allows for pleasures such as salt and
desserts to make life satisfying. This life that results from the imagined
city, accordingly, would be one that is desirable and provides for everyone’s
needs.
This city provides for all human
needs and the participants are not expected or required to provide anything
outside the bounds of their skill or expertise within their specialized craft.
Nor are they expected to produce more than what is necessary for the city –
there is no need for excess. Each will “live in peace and good health, and when
they die at a ripe old age, they’ll bequeath a similar life to their children,”
[3] and it is this city that Socrates deems the healthy city, the true
city. All is right with this city; everyone is fulfilled and has purpose within
the city, not only in their physical need, but in their social need, as well.
They are able to feast and enjoy intimacy. They have children and can worship
their deities (express gratitude) as they wish. They are able to pass down this
good life to their descendants, ensuring they also will be content and
satisfied in their life. Could there be anything wrong with this hypothetical
city?
It would appear so, as the dialogue
continues to reveal desires and expectations beyond these basic human needs.
The character Glaucon suggests that there is something wrong with this city –
that people desire finer things than the spices and desserts Socrates suggests
earlier. [4] He states that people need fine
furniture and delicacies in order to enjoy life to the full. Glaucon expresses
an expectation of luxury within the city that Socrates is willing to entertain,
for this is where the healthy city will become unhealthy – the progression that
leads to the introduction of injustice. In addition to the expectation of fine
furnishings and delicacies, Socrates adds perfumes and incense, prostitutes and
pastries, and expensive decorations such as embroidery, gold, and ivory. [5] These
expensive additions to the available products within a city would most
certainly whet an appetite for more than basic needs; in fact, such
expectations lead to war with neighboring communities over land possession. A
sense of competition or coveting arises within the city when one desires the
possessions or privilege of another. The produce of the city would then be
classified according to value: basic, finer, or finest. The egalitarian sharing
of products in the healthy city is now lost in a hierarchy of privilege and
elitism – all feeling they deserve finery above what they basically need. This
city has become infected and unhealthy in its desires, expectations, and
ultimately, greed.
This metaphor equating the city to
a body, either healthy or unhealthy (one with a fever [6]), is appropriate to
describe the introduction of expectations and greed into the city. A body is
healthy when all parts of the whole are working at optimum capacity,
contributing what is needed when it is needed – like the healthy city where
everyone contributes what is needed for a satisfying human life. Conversely,
the unhealthy body is one where parts of the body are impeded or unwilling to
contribute what is needed at the moment of need. The producers may still be
producing what is needed for the basic needs of the city, but so much more is
desired and expected. The whole city becomes out of balance when one crafter’s
product is valued higher than others. Competition results while the
motivation for quality production can be overshadowed by a drive to garner
higher demand. Not only are the producers distracted by demand (or lack,
thereof), they have an unnecessary expectation of luxury themselves. Perhaps
they will no longer want to do what is necessary to produce the needed product
for the city, instead yearning for status or authority over others. Thus greed,
individually and socially, is the infection that causes a city to be ill and
respond with a fever. When the body is exposed to disease or illness, the body
responds by raising temperature to kill the intruding and harmful organism, and
white cells are sent to a foreign object within the body to surround the object
for the purpose of protection, evicting it from the body. Working together, the
high temperature fever and white blood cells both immobilize the invader and
eliminate it from the body. For Socrates, “those same desires that are
most of all responsible for the bad things that happen to cities and the
individuals in them” [7] is exactly the infection causing the fever
in the unhealthy city. The expectation of deserved luxury, the lack of
contentment, and desired status and authority over others causes the healthy
city to become feverish and ill.
Cities are necessary because people
cannot survive without each other. This presupposition finds truth in the
idealistic healthy model of a city, but it is worthwhile to contemplate whether
the healthy city and the unhealthy city can co-exist. More specifically, can
both the healthy city and the unhealthy city be the same city at the same time?
It could be said that both the healthy and unhealthy city provide the basic
needs of the people, including food, shelter, and clothing. However, in
the unhealthy city, people lower in a system of hierarchy (lower-class) may
have more difficulty acquiring these basic needs due to social and economic
restrictions. It also be argued that other needs such as safety for rest and
intimacy with others could be seriously impeded with the introduction of
unhealthy greed into the city. No one can feel completely safe when their
livelihood has been consumed with thoughts of competition to be better than the
next producer, striving to acquire more luxury, or manipulating situations or
others to gain status or authority over others. Further, when a city is attacking
their neighbors for needed land for additional production of luxury items, no
one is safe from neighboring armies reacting in retaliation. When this
situation exists within and around a city, no one can experience safety to rest
in peace – there is no peace. And, when there is no peace, intimacy between
people is most certainly strained. Who can you trust if everyone is striving
for themselves and greedily coveting the possessions and status of others?
Relationships are weakened, families are strained, and individualism is
reinforced when everyone is focused upon themselves rather than the good of the
city. I believe the answer is no – the healthy city and the unhealthy city are
at odds with one another and certainly are unable to co-exist. As oil cannot
mix with water, I don’t believe health and ill-health, or justice and
injustice, can ultimately exist simultaneously. I think Socrates believed the
same.
References
Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and Plato. "Book II." In Plato's Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992.
[1] Plato’s Republic, Book II, Line 367d
[2] Book II, Line 372b
[3] Book II, Line 372d
[4] Book II, Line 372e
[5] Book II, Line 373b
[6] Book II, Line 373a
[7] Book II, Line 373e
No comments:
Post a Comment