Summary and Questions for “The Protreptic Rhetoric of the Republic” by Harvey Yunis

In Harvey Yunis’ article “The Protreptic Rhetoric of the Republic,” Yunis examines what purpose motivated Plato to write the Republic, how we can know that purpose, and how the Republic is shaped in order to accomplish such a goal. More specifically, he is interested in how Plato intended for the Republic to effect its readers, both contemporary and far onward to ourselves millennia later. Yunis argues “that Plato’s purpose as a philosophical writer was not merely to present compelling arguments about how one should live, but to present them in such a way that the reader would be most likely to be compelled by them to live in a particular way” (1). As such, it seems that Yunis identifies Plato’s ultimate goal as to incite change and action, not merely contemplation, and he interprets the Republic as a persuasive text that endorses the arguments within.  

Yunis clarifies the kind of active change the Republic aims at by pointing to the change exemplified by the interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus over the course of Socrates’ argument. He claims that Glaucon and Adeimantus change in three ways: they change their views on justice, they change their values, and they are depicted in such a way by Plato as to suggest that they will change the way they live after the close of the dialogue. These last two are particularly important as the two brothers are turned toward valuing virtue and the good over anything selfish or material. This is the purpose of the arguments of the Republic, and “this purpose can be summed up in the word protreptic” (4). A protreptic education, as defined by Yunis, “does not by itself bring about education in virtue;” rather, “it aims to get education in virtue under way, to get the reader or auditor turned and moving in the right direction, and to make the acquisition of virtue an urgent priority” (4). In Yunis’ argument, this definition of protreptic education is all important, for Yunis argues that a protreptic education of readers is Plato’s fundamental goal with the Republic. From this point, Yunis divides his essay into four parts. The first looks to what it meant for Plato to write in order to change his readers values, the second to who the audience of the Republic was, the third to how “the view of the Republic as protreptic [squares] with Plato’s views on political and philosophical discourse,” and fourth to how this protreptic goal is reflected in the text (5).

In regards to the first, Yunis argues that Plato was not operating on the premise that “he could change the values of every reader who picked up the Republic,” or that any potential readers would be as enthusiastic as Glaucon and Adeimantus. Rather, as demonstrated by an interlocutor like Thrasymachus, some readers would have no desire to for an earnest philosophical discussion towards examining a virtuous life. However, while Plato could not determine how readers would be affected by the text, his “strategy was to exploit the available literary sources,” which were under Plato’s control, “in such a way that an unknown reader would most likely be moved as close to Socrates’ position on justice and the soul as possible” (7). This protreptic strategy is less focused on the outcome and more on making the educational material as compelling to a reader as possible. In this way, Yunis parallels Plato’s protreptic endeavor, through writing, with Socrates’ protreptic endeavor, through conversation with his fellow citizens. Also, like Socrates, Plato’s endeavor should be judged by its goals and methods, not its overall outcome. Indeed, “if Plato were to move that reader even slightly closer to Socrates’ view of justice and the soul than he was before, that would not be an insignificant achievement” (9).

In the second section, Yunis describes the social and historical background in which Plato was writing and how the genre of dialogue fit into such a climate. The dialogue form was a kind of popular writing that avoided “the constraints of democratic competition and the religious scruples attached to public poetic performance,” which gave the dialogue form an unprecedented freedom (10). It is likely that only the aristocratic class would have had the leisure and education to read Plato’s dialogues; however, there is no real evidence of who the contemporary Athenian readers were or what kind of background they brought to the text. More importantly, Yunis identifies the “moral and political status” of Plato’s intended readers (11). These individuals would be “responsible for their personal welfare and common affairs, who had choices to make, individually and collectively” (11). Yunis further argues that Plato wrote for a broad audience because Plato broke with the philosophical tradition of writing technical treatises, and, instead, he “sought to treat ethical problems of universal relevance and to make philosophy accessible”  by writing engaging literary dialogues (13). The effect of this new style is important because it is aimed at appealing to the reader by making philosophy seem almost ordinary and the “consequence of a chance, everyday encounter,” much like the one we see opening the Republic. Such naturalness results in what Yunis terms “disguised protreptic,” which disarms the reader and opens minds to Plato’s protreptic purpose (14).

The third section argues that the protreptic nature works in conjunction with Plato’s political and philosophical aims. In the Republic, Plato warns of the danger faced by a philosopher in the city, and, accordingly, writing dialogues allows Plato to make philosophical arguments while retaining freedom of speech and personal safety. Moreover, his dialogues are an experimental attempt “to explain what philosophy is and why political power should be entirely vested in the philosophers” (17). Yunis even suggests that Plato implements in his writing the strategies he delineates in the Republic for how the guardians should be educated. In the dialogue, Plato wants to control influences such as “mythological tales, narrative and dramatic poetry, particular rhythms, songs, diction…,” many of which are used by Plato himself in the Republic to comprehensively make his arguments. More importantly, this makes the Republic a “counter charm to poetry’s spell,” as Socrates’ argues for in the text. In this sense, “the Republic challenges and aims to supplant Homer,” “to rectify deeply ingrained cultural values,” and “to bring about the symbolic displacement of the massive body of poetry at the center of the inherited culture” (19).

In the last section, Yunis turns to identifying examples of Plato’s protreptic purpose in the text. The greatest protreptic moment in in Book 5 when Socrates speaks of the “three waves.” The waves are the proposals about women and children and culminate in the argument for philosopher kings. Such proposals “are incompatible with conventional beliefs about human nature current in fourth century Greece, and it is that incompatibility that creates the threat posed by the three waves” (21). Indeed, the proposals seem impossible. As such, Plato must encourage his readers to overcome their culturally inherited conventions and accept the argument on its merits. This is accomplished rhetorically through Plato’s narrative and imagistic devices. For instance, “the image of the cave contributes greatly to this task: it depicts conventional values as unnatural, and it explains the fact that the unnaturalness of these values has generally gone unnoticed” (22). Additionally, the characters of Glaucon and Adeimantus, individuals much like Plato’s prospective audience, are crucial because they embody the transformation from disbelief to true belief. As such, they allow “the reader to feel… that perhaps he too can withstand the waves and come to accept philosopher kings as natural” (23). What is all important is that the text and its literary devices are as compelling as possible to the reader to turn them, as Glaucon and Adeimantus are turned, towards value virtue and living virtuous lives.

Questions:

1. Why does Yunis think it necessary to distinguish between education that itself brings about virtue and protreptic education that only aims to turn the audience toward virtue? Why does the Republic fall into the protreptic category and not the former?

2. If the Republic is protreptic as defined by Yunis, are Socrates’ arguments are to be understood as Plato’s legitimate political ideas and goals? Can we take Plato at face value?

3. For Yunis, the Republic is primarily educational. However, it could also be interpreted as primarily political. Can either be said to be more or less correct? Or is it even valuable to attempt to nail down one single motivating force behind the writing of the Republic?

4. Yunis singles out Glaucon and Adeimantus as the examples within the text of the transformation Plato desires in his readers. What about the other interlocutors? Thrasymachus could be a negative example, but what about Polemarchus or Cephalus? How are they meant to affect us, the readers?

5. Yunis suggests that the Republic may be a counter charm to the allure of poetry. In Books I and II, the interlocutors often cite poets as authority figures. Is there a specific way Socrates’ responded to these uses of the poets that suggests how he is countering them?