Seminar Paper V

              

                Book V of the Republic signals a change in the conversation when Polymarchus draws in the cloak of Adeimantus and forces Socrates to re-examine his argument. It is a clear parallel to Book I where it is Polymarchus arresting Socrates by ordering his slave to physically grab Socrates’ cloak. Or is there more to it? This in a nut-shell is how I feel about Book V. Where on the surface, it seems this is where the similarities between the cloak references in I and V ends, I believe Plato takes it a step further. In light of the search for these deeper connection in book V, I argue that Socrates ignored the argument of women and children because of the first two waves, not because of the third. But let us return to our example before addressing my main concern. In Book I, after arresting Socrates and Glaucon, Polymarchus asserts his strength in numbers, asking them, “’Could you really persuade,’ he said, ‘if we don’t listen?’” (327c). The answer obviously is no; they couldn’t persuade them. In Book V, after arresting Socrates, it is clear that they are listening. I believe Plato is saying, ok you didn’t have to listen but now you are, and now that you are listening let’s take it back to the cloak conversation, “Then the women guardians must strip, since they’ll clothe themselves in virtue instead of robes,” and then ridicules the man who laughs at this (457a-b). The cloak conversation is not merely a new beginning, it is a challenge to the interlocutors based on what they’ve retained so far, asking them if they’ll scoff at a women guardian or if they’ll let her do what she by nature was born to do.

                Before addressing the first wave, it is necessary to see Socrates’ hesitation. He first argues that he doesn’t know the truth or the dangers accompanying this, but that there are obvious dangers, and even if the interlocutors weren’t to hold him guilty, he would be like an “involuntary murder[er]” (451a-b). But an involuntary murderer is still a murderer and is not held guiltless by the gods, unless absolved by the victim or a family member of the victim – which Socrates is. But it’s still a fine line and not the most encouraging start to his argument. I believe this hesitation in essence is the reason he is reluctant before the second wave too: it complicates the parts of the soul.

                On the surface, the first wave is about the education of the women in the City in Speech. It is not surprising that Socrates comes to the conclusion that they should be educated for what they’re going to be, as we’ve seen before that the guardians are educated to be guardians, a shoe maker is educated to become a shoemaker etc. It starts to get interesting after he’s made the argument that men and women are not different by nature and therefore must be educated together, “One education won’t produce men for us and another women, will it, especially since it is dealing with the same nature?” (456c-d) No, they are the same by nature so they must be educated together. We can assert from this that since a man can be a guardian, auxiliary or worker, so can a woman, “Therefore, my friend, there is no practice of a city’s governors which belongs to woman because she’s woman, or to man because he’s man; but the natures are scattered alike among both animals; and woman participates according to nature in all practices, and man in all, but in all of them woman is weaker than man” (455d-e).

The conversation of weakness on the surface feels odd and sexist, but it proves to be richer than this. Although being weak has a negative connotation and implies subordination, I don’t think that’s Socrates’ point. The point is that although women in Athenian society had less rights than men and were undoubtable weaker in a political sense, they were judged by their own standard. This can be seen in 456d-e, when Socrates makes the comparison of (male) guardians being the best among citizens (male) and women being judged on their own scale. Socrates is establishing the limit for women while at the same time encouraging the one-man one-art concept, that one hones in on what they’re good at. In doing so, he acknowledges that the female guardians have different roles than the male guardians when he describes the role of the woman guardian in the supervision of nursing (460d).

This is where I believe this is where the city-soul analogy gets complex. If women are the same in nature as men and fill the same roles, then we don’t need new parts of the soul for the addition of women to our city. But it seems clear that although they are the same by nature, women are different in some way because they have different strengths and weaknesses which lead them to play different roles in the city. I read this as a divergence of the three parts of the soul. Although a woman guardian is still a guardian, she supervises over something a male guardian doesn’t. In light of the analogy, it would appear then that the calculating, spirited and desiring parts of the soul can be further divided. In one individual, there would be multiple calculating parts calculating. Although I see the practicality in women playing different roles than men, I’m not sure if Socrates wishes to add this element to the soul, which could be the reason he is reluctant to approach this topic.

The second wave also complicates the city- soul analogy but in a much different way. Socrates does not hesitate to define the second wave, but immediately after doing so Glaucon questions the possibility and beneficialness. Although Socrates believes that it is only the former that should be questioned, but never-the-less “submit[s] to the penalty,” and asks if he can “take a holiday like the idle men who are accustomed to feast their minds for themselves when they walk along” (458a). First, it is interesting that Plato uses the word feast. This could be a reference to the dinner-date Socrates was promised, of which he has now realized he won’t be in attendance. But it is interesting too that Socrates deflects here, saying that possibility isn’t important for us to consider now but we can do it later. But as we know, he only half-heartedly addresses this concern later when he claims it’s contingent on the third wave. It’s weird, and like the first wave, I read it as a clunky beginning to the argument because of its implications on the city soul analogy. Where he is resistant to the first wave, here he is admitting the limitations of this wave.

The second wave is about the holding in common of women and children. Because of the way Socrates sets up this argument, as seen above, it is necessary for him just to jump straight into it and argue for the benefit of women and children being held in common in the city. The first concern here is of sexual mixing, which is to be controlled by the rulers. It is interesting here, because the quotation, “And the most beneficial marriages would be sacred” (458e), is a direct reference to Zeus and Hera, a brother and sister. While Socrates is somewhat clear about the prohibition of such an act, I believe it could be a reference to the guardians and auxiliaries needing to be married together, or in agreement. The argument for these two parts of the city soul analogy being in harmony can be seen all throughout The Republic, but it is here in Book V that the auxiliaries and guardians are shown as more similar than different. For example, in 464a-b, in discussing what is the cause of holding things in common and the greatest good of the pain and pleasure of the whole city, he gives credit to both the community of women and children among the guardians as well as the auxiliaries. I also would argue that 468c, which references soldiers in battle and then going back to who can have kids, is saying that the auxiliaries are also included in who can have children.  

It is later in this wave that two big implications on the soul arise through the auxiliaries. The first I will call the second test. The first test comes in Book III where all of the auxiliaries and guardians who have been reared and educated are tested to see if they are worthy of being a guardian. Although most scholars see this not as a changing of modes, per say, but as a distinction and refining of the guardians, I challenge this with a conversation in the second wave of Book V: “’Now what about the business of war?’ I said. ‘How must your soldiers behave toward one another and the enemies? … If one of them’ I said, ‘leaves the ranks or throws away his arms, or does anything of the sort because of cowardice, mustn’t he be demoted to craftsman or farmer?’” (468a). This is the second test. The rearing and education of the youth are tested in Book III and only those who stick true to their education become guardians. In Book V it is a testing of the auxiliaries on the field of battle, and they are no longer youth. Both cases to me suggest movement. While I acknowledge that the test in Book III is less clear about whether it is a changing of modes or just a refinement, here it is clearer to me. The example uses a grown auxiliary in battle, and if he fails, he will no longer be an auxiliary but a worker. He has been trained for battle just as the guardians and auxiliaries had been trained for the first one in Book III, but by the auxiliary being full grown here, it implies he has been trained in everything essential to being a soldier, and fails not due to youth but because of his own lack of virtue (non-courageous). The way I read this in light of the analogy, is that if the spirited part of your soul is not being courageous, he is giving into desires and no longer doing his job. But here, it appears when the spirited part loses its virtue of courage, that part of the soul is not only giving in, but it is changing forms.

The second implication of the soul in the second wave is the outside consideration of the soul. When describing how the soldiers ought to act in war, he spends a good deal of time delineating between Greeks and barbarians. By claiming that our city is Greek automatically groups it as a city in a country. But not only that, the Greece of this time is a nation of city states. So what does it mean that they’ll “be a lover of the Greeks? Won’t they consider Greece their own and hold common holy places along with the other Greeks?” (470e). It’s a city within a country, but the country acts like a city itself. They hold things in common externally – just like the city does internally – and love each other, just as the leaders of the city love wisdom. The language is all the same as describing the city. There can even be faction among Greeks, while faction is only something that can happen to one’s own. But it’s not enough for cities to work together to form a country, “Then they’ll correct their opponents in a kindly way...” (471a). The word here for correct actually means “to make moderate,” implying that the correcting is happening in respect city soul analogy. They are literally educating their opponents of war on how to become just, and in doing so they’ll be like the just Greek cities. I believe the implications here on the soul are the beginnings of the argument for the external use of justice. A just soul can align itself with other just souls who have similar loves and things in common as well as an obligation of the soul to educate those they come into contact with.

The interlude between the second and third waves is odd in that Socrates addresses the notion of possibility, which I alluded to above, by only saying it relies on the third wave. There are clear practical limits to a philosopher king, especially the paradox in the argument of needing a philosopher king to create a just city. But really, if the interlocutors have been interpreting Socrates via the city-soul analogy through the first two waves, the third is something he has essentially already taught us. The notion of a part of the city being more powerful and better discerning than the rest is clearly seen in the guardians; essentially all he’s doing here is clarifying what a guardian is. Don not be deceived by the difficulty of selling the argument that a philosopher should rule the city, as well as the already apparent argument of whether it is possible to cultivate such a man. But still see that he has already established their need, he just had not labeled the guardians as philosophers yet. For these reasons, I think the ideas brought forward in the first two waves are much more controversial than the third wave in the light of the soul.