Plato’s Republic* on the Concept of the People

Here's my Political Theory paper :)

Over the course of political history, little has been discussed when it comes to the concept of the people. This is because it is represented as an exceptionally broad topic in terms of definition and coverage. With this in mind, one can assume that the distributive totality of this concept significantly affects everything related to political theory and even philosophy. [1] Based on this understanding, this paper gives a perspective of the concept with regard to beliefs, communal living, personhood, and power of the people; all of which are individually useful in understanding the concept better.

Literally, the word “people” refers to a plurality of human beings, man or woman, linked by a common interest or belief. In the course of time, its meaning evolved and can be considered synonymous with “nation,” ‘community,” and even “society.” [2] This definition relatively serves as a threshold to its political and philosophical meanings, given and analyzed by theorists and philosophers like John Locke, John Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant in their respective studies. All three are mainly examining the interrelation between the rational individuals that comprise a compact group of people.

Likewise, the detailed anatomizing of such perceptions is greatly demonstrated in ancient Greek history [3] and Plato’s Republic. Plato argues that the concept of the people, as an indispensable factor in the systematic construction of his utopian state for its meaning surfaces all throughout this masterpiece, should be analyzed on the process of singling out. In entirety, the concept reveals itself to be necessary not only for human existence, but also the promotion of individual values.

People and beliefs

Based on the definition provided earlier, people are bound together by beliefs, culture, necessity, interests, and/or traditions. This binding force is what permits people to naturally become people in the first place. Because of this raison d'être, it is quite sensible to analyze this aspect of the concept more for it operates as a prerequisite to the substance of the argument.

At the outset of Book I, Socrates visits a festival for a goddess in Piraeus and stated his opinions about the event. (327 a) This highlights the fact that a certain attribute connects people together---in this case, a religious festival. Furthermore, the idea of Socrates making an opinion makes this excerpt interesting for it not only focuses on the belief that surrounds the festival, but also the belief of the individual, which will be tackled later on.

Traditions and beliefs are, in nature, heritable, which is a necessary trait for it eventually results to the existential continuation of a certain people. One instance in The Republic that builds up this case is the process of beliefs partaking from childhood, brought up by parents and ancestors. (537 d) The “convictions” or “paths” presented here by Plato states that these inherent beliefs should be treated as rules and should be honored for they are vital to the people’s existence. (451 c)

Also, traditions and beliefs have a tendency to exist in a one-to-one basis. This trait illustrates pairing of a certain element of a set uniquely with an element of another set---in this case, one belief is to one certain kind of people. Although a people may possess numerous beliefs, it is against logic to hold beliefs that contradict by any means. This condition entails that a person cannot be qualified to be a member of a certain type of people if he/she opposes the majority’s beliefs (although it is important to know that this applies if only one premise of a belief is taken into account. e.g. A man believes in the existence of one god therefore he is a member of the monotheistic community, but this does not necessarily mean he accepts everything each monotheistic person believes in, maybe in terms of music, government, education, etc.) As Plato puts it, a multitude can only accept the fair as itself, rather than many fair things. (493 c-494 a) In some cases however, the differences brought about by the expression of beliefs have responsiveness toward increase in number. In the context of the Republic, it is mentioned that men who develop a rivalry create multitudes like themselves. (550 e)

Lastly, one cannot disregard the value of necessity which, perhaps, is the most crucial among these “binding forces” that unite people, for it generally applies to a wide-ranging group, if not everyone. This, without a shadow of a doubt, is one of the foundations for the construction of Plato’s utopian city, The Republic. (369 c) and as Plato puts it, “letting everything else go is the whole risk for a human being.” (618 b) All these aspects of beliefs and necessities are, therefore, what comprise the connections made among people.

People and communal living

The essential factors of beliefs and necessity at some point would force people, to congregate and assemble for their own existence. [4] Thus, communal living serves as a complex relationship created between individuals which results from the beliefs and necessities mentioned previously. Living as “common people” with a healthy relationship with one another therefore means a back and forth exchange of certain things, concrete or abstract, that interlock together like “metal links on a chain” to create a reinforced and more solid bond. [5]

This common bond keeps a group of people to seize obligations to protect each other, institute formal ruling based on established ethical tenets, and call for social expansion chiefly to sustain, as the Republic describes it, “harmony” among people. Such description can be paralleled to the ancient polis, the Athenian city-state. The Polis had succeeded for some three hundred years by being flexible and adapting to the growing sophistication of its people. Each time the balance of power between the classes was disturbed, good relationship and communication brought it back to equilibrium. [6]

The protection of common people has been recurrent subtheme in the Republic. One instance is where in the pursuit for the bona fide meaning of justice, Socrates argued that Polemarchus’ definition was lacking intelligibility and the terminologies of good, evil, friend, and foe were vaguely used. (331 b- 334 b) However, the former agreed at some points asserted to him by the latter, like implications of people safeguarding allies insofar as their co-existence is being disrupted by external forces or individuals. Socrates added that in times of battle, an army would secure the state from invaders. (374 a) These forms of security and protection, be it on a personal level (e.g. common people) or a formal level (e.g. an army), pave the way for people to unite and, as mentioned earlier, to continue to live in harmony. In times of pleasure and pain, a united people tend to bind with one another, not just as a sign of camaraderie, but also as a formation of an identity as common people. (462 b)

In line with the imbedding of a social identity, an eventual institution of law is necessary to obtain and maintain a peaceful assembly of people. The laws have the main purpose of harmonizing the citizens by persuasion and compulsions, making them share with one another the benefit that each class is able to bring to the common wealth instead of favoring one specific class. (519 e- 520 a) The law is based on the cultural and ethical disposition of the people, nation, or society; therefore, every member of the community is and should be covered by this sphere of power. (580 c) Thrasymachus, who is known for taking exception to Socratic ideas made one good point regarding law which Socrates himself acknowledged. He mentioned that a city is principally recognizing an established ruling. (339 a) Although, he superficially manipulated this rhetoric by emphasizing that these rulings benefit only the stronger, the pedestal of his argument was on the right track. In the purging of Homeric poetry, Socrates delivers such laws by stating proclamations regarding how the guardians should not, in any way, be associated with the “other side” of the works where gods explicitly exhibit feeble and inappropriate actions and attitudes. (580 c) Such declaration by Socrates is considerably a good case indicating how reasonable rulings are laid down for the welfare of a people---in this situation, the guardians.

Incidentally, these guardians signify another requirement for a harmonious communal living among people, leaders of the state. These leaders serve as representatives of the people, thus they are recognized by people as embodiments of themselves. In the Republic, a guardian is described vis-à-vis his/her constituents. Socrates precisely states inappropriate poetry should not be heard by auxiliaries from childhood onwards for it will oppose their rationalized mental attitude of honoring the gods and ancestors and not taking lightly their friendship with each other. (386 a) Furthermore, he accentuates the importance of leaders in a community by stating that they [the auxiliaries] should not, by any means, be irrational for then they would be incapable as “sovereigns of great things.” (533 d) In terms of social importance, the good leader that possesses rhythm and harmony on most or all occasions would be most useful to the “city” (413 e) Alongside utility, Socrates defined the true guardian to display oneness with the people, for this value is necessary to prevent the leader from imposing harm to other members of the city. (421 b) When all is said and done, Socrates added that the leader that serves his/her constituents most agreeably and knows their wishes beforehand and is clever at fulfilling them would, on that account, be honored by the people. (426 c)
Plato’s approach regarding people and communal living revolves around the interconnections made between the members of the society, for example, the guardians and the citizens. It is clear that the primary obligation of the guardians is to govern the citizens and to do so justly while the citizens must comprehend by the rules laid down by the state in order to preserve a harmonious social order, to strengthen the common bond among the constituents, and most fundamentally, identify themselves as a people.

But of course, this idea of communal living does not carry on without any limitations. In the formation of the Republic in Book II, Socrates presented an inevitable problem regarding the city and its expansion. He stated that they [he and his interlocutors] were considering “not only how a city, but a luxurious city, comes into being.” (372 d) Also, as the main theme of Book VIII, Socrates reveals the leaders failing to rightly rule the state in respect of properly attend the needs and rights of the people. Some examples of these deliberate attempts to disturb social order are the oligarchs, who would love to spend the people’s money (548 b) and timocratic rulers who would be brutal to slaves if they would not meet up to their expectations therefore denying the rulers of honor and military glory. (549 a) With communal living comes a tendency of people to alienate and reject other people, specifically those who do not comply with their conformity. Socrates puts this in an allegory of a seed sown in alien ground and how it falls away in disposition. (497 b) In the allegory of the cave, it is said that the people inside the cave, who were in it from childhood with their legs and necks in bonds, were unable, because of the bond, to turn their heads all the way around. (514 a-b)

People and personhood

By now, a sufficient amount of understanding concerning the people as a common entity has been attained through a series of diversifying a concept into individual ideas. In the same way, the multitude of people must be parsed into the singularity of the person. The Republic makes it a point that this idea of branching out and how a person constitutes the people, as one body with several parts, or a mother and its sons and vice-versa must be conveyed. Historically, Rousseau, Locke, and Kant, in one way or another, support this point of view with their respective essays and published works. [7] But more importantly, the complexities of defining personhood within an individual, and ultimately, within a community, must be examined.

Plato’s perspective regarding singularities within a group covers most parts of his work. The formation of a utopian state by Socrates and his conversational partners pushed through under the premise that justice, after being examined in a macroscopic level, should be considered as a value within individuals, with respect to “the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler.” (369 a) In addition to this, it is mentioned how “the same argument also applies to justice and injustice, good and bad, and all the forms; each is itself one, but, by showing themselves everywhere in a community with actions, bodies, and one another, each looks like many.” In administering this, the interlocutors found that it is acceptable, so as to the majority’s idea is similar to that of an individual member of a group. Furthermore, Rousseau writes in his book Emile that “he [referring to the “Natural Man” or the individual] is numerical unity, the absolute whole which is relative only to itself or its kind. He is only a fractional unity dependent on the denominator; his value is determined by his relation to the whole, which is the social body.” [8] This means that a member of a society constitutes a whole entity in a way that he/she becomes relative to his/her particular group. Hence, an individual’s value is affected by his/her role in relation to the society.

It is important to indicate that this brings in a paradox, of sorts, since the earlier statements imply that a multiplicity of persons create one people. [9] This idea, however, deepens the concept of a structural view of people as one body comprising several parts. The body as a whole refers to the cluster of people, while the parts comprise of the different institutions in the same group of citizens. The tendency when one body part is harmed in any way is that it is fended for by its other part. For example, when a body loses both its feet, the hands must bear their function of, for instance, walking. Inasmuch as one part serves as an alternative to the other, the Republic views a citizen as an “affected part of its own.” (462 e) Yet, the certain part that carries out a function not intended as its primary purpose or “alien” to it, the whole body have a propensity to collapse, momentarily or permanently. (587 a) Similar to a body and its parts, the Republic also gives a complementary take by citing the “Myth of Er.” A part of this legend tells of the land as a mother and its citizens as brothers for they were born of the same earth. (414 e) The scheme of mother-son relationship blends smoothly with the thought of “oneness in many,” presented in this example as a family.

Roles in the society have been discussed in the first part of this analysis, particularly on the topic of communal living among the people. However, the subject lacks in spotlighting the primary component of an individual: his/her values. These values are perhaps one of the main implications of the Socratic dialogue for they present the constitution of not only a person’s position in the society, but also his/her internal characteristics that compose personhood. John Locke holds the same idea, stating that “the body, as well as the soul, goes to the making of a man. And thus may we be able, without any difficulty, to conceive the same person at the resurrection, though in a body not exactly in make or parts the same which he had here,- the same consciousness going along with the soul that inhabits it.” [10] The aspects of the soul, therefore, should be given the same reception as what was given to the citizens and the groups they created, for conceivably, the soul is correlated with values constituting personhood.

In Plato’s masterpiece, the Republic was envisaged as a city “coming into being in speech” (369 a) which most certainly characterizes a specific whole built on a dialectic. This lengthy discussion and reasoning by dialogue presents itself as something astounding, alarming, but intelligible. Interestingly enough, the sole activity of reasoning has made it possible for the interlocutors, who they themselves are people, to theoretically build a city by using a faculty of the soul---reason, instead of their physical attributes; and rightfully so, for it is also mentioned how the guardians should partake their education, “gymnastic for bodies and music for the soul.” (376 e) These guardians, as mentioned earlier, are the perfect representatives of the people in the State. Thus, their souls are examined and put into perspective by Plato, likewise harmonized by moderation, courage, and wisdom. (411a) If correctly founded, he adds, the city would be perfectly good (427e) and people would mind their own businesses, that is, with respect to the positive development of their souls. (517 c-d) These values building up personhood, if properly established and completely utilized, become the definitive part of any individual, even more so a whole society.

In relation to the society or community, the person who has correctly instituted a good and soulful personhood, from appropriate rearing, (491 d) will eventually earn the right to be admired, or at least respected, by his/her fellowmen which contributes yet again to social harmony and preservation. The Republic implies that the just man is “character-filled” and constantly generates admiration from all men and women. (561 e) Also, “…after having considered moderation, courage, and prudence, that is what’s left over in the city; it provided the power by which all these others came into being; and, once having come into being, it provides them with preservation as long as it’s in the city.” (433 c) But it is quite necessary to note that even if a man has a good constitution as a person, he cannot be above the community’s law. “A person is a subject who is capable of having his actions imputed to him. Moral personality is, therefore, nothing but the freedom of a rational being under moral laws; and it is to be distinguished from psychological freedom as the mere faculty by which we become conscious of ourselves in different states of the identity of our existence. Hence it follows that a person is properly subject to no other laws than those he lays down for himself, either alone or in conjunction with others.” [11]

In addition, the value of wisdom in the Socratic dialogue gives emphasis to and props up the good, not the bad. This is evident in Plato’s words: “For badness would never know virtue in an educated nature will in time gain a knowledge of both itself and badness. This man, in my opinion, and not the bad one, becomes wise.” (409 d) To further illustrate this point, Socrates stated that an unjust and unwise man portrays himself as a man who knows all the crafts; thus, other innocent men would follow and admire him, unknowing of the former’s true personhood. (589 c-d) This innocent acquisition of false values, in turn, would yield to a multitude, making most of the people bad. Plato gives a take on this, by stating the “many are bad” and it is necessary to have true philosophers. [12] (490 d) Furthermore, “a man is like his city, [it is] also necessary that the same arrangement be in him and that his soul be filled with much slavery and illiberality, and that, further, those parts of it that are more decent be slaves while a small part, the most depraved and maddest.” (577 d) The city or even any society, if exposed to a controlling and depraved individual such as the one mentioned, will participate in a series of complaining, sighing, lamentations and suffering. (578 a)

To gain a more insightful and deeper understanding of this, the story of the human soul as a composite creature, a Chimera, was told. It is the goal of the philosopher, to place the man above the beast, and domesticate its bestial force to activities which pursue the good, making the beast a subservient ally, “like a father, nourishing and cultivating the tame heads, while hindering growth of the savage ones…” (589 a-b) This allegory goes to show that, yet again, good values yield to a good personhood. But what is waiting for an individual who fails to institute a good and just personhood? The Republic provides an answer: “…they [unjust men] had paid the penalty for every one [unjust deed] in turn, ten times over for each…” (615 a) Inevitably, this commanding factor brings about yet another aspect in the concept of people.

Power of the people

“Could you really persuade,” he said, “if we don’t listen?” (327 c) These words might seem beside the point of the concept of people, but this study begs to differ. Polemarchus, in uttering this, managed to persuade Socrates to join them and eventually produce a theoretical city through dialogue, the Republic. Such incident is a perfect epitome of how the power of people, either negative or positive, is a decisive factor to a people’s life.
Unsurprisingly, there is strength in numbers. In a helpful note, the Republic shows that when the tyrant exhausts everything within his reach and in due course is forced to live among a multitude of ordinary men, he is “bound by a blessed necessity that prescribes that he either dwell with the ordinary many, or cease to live.” (567 d) A sense of intimidation is provided in this line, signaling a transfer in power. This shift of power is proven through the story of the true pilot and the mutineers as told by Socrates. The story basically states that the mutineers are “always crowded around the shipowner himself, begging and doing everything so that he’ll turn the rudder over to them.” Initially, this ill-founded plan of rebellion fails, but the people showed persistence, by picking of what was left of other men who succeeded in taking control of the ship. Then, “the man who is clever at figuring out how they will get the rule, either by persuading or by forcing the shipowner, while the man who is not of this sort they blame as useless…” (488 b-d) Negatively applying itself in this example, the power vested naturally upon a group of people shows how all subtopics mentioned prior to this fold in towards power itself. [13]

However, at some instances, quality overcomes quantity. If a certain group of people possess a greater amount of personhood and are more united as a community, they have the ability to trounce another group of people who are against their beliefs. In the context of Plato’s masterpiece concerning the formation of the State, Socrates revealed that “in all likelihood our champions [the guardians] will easily fight with two or three times their number.” (422 c) Also, in Greek history, the “Battle of Thermopylae” [14] showed how the Spartans, [15] deeply undermanned, were still able to defeat the overwhelming Persian army because they are highly-skilled in the art of war.

Conclusion

Looking back at the definition of people and how Plato’s Republic and some accounts in political history have managed to emphasize that in order to fully understand the concept of the people and appreciate its constant presence in the existence of humanity, one must consider thoughtfully separating individuals from a group. With this comes a perspective of the community in relation to its existence, and an individual in relation to the aspects involved in his personhood--- a view from all angles, so to speak.

Interestingly enough, the final words of the Republic, although anticlimactic, serve as an appropriate conclusion to the value of a great concept such as the people. It states that “…we shall always keep to the upper road and practice justice with prudence in every way so that we shall be friends to ourselves and the gods, both while we remain here and when we reap the rewards for it like the victors who go about gathering in the prizes. And to here and the thousand year journey that we have described we shall fare well.” (621 d) This focuses on the collective standpoint by the mere claim of the word “we” and gives a resounding importance on “faring well” as one people. With all things considered, the subsistence of the concept of the people would not become a prospect without the collectiveness of human beings. As Rousseau would imply, “civic virtue and human solidarity cannot be opposed because the one implies the other. In other words: intersubjectivity is a necessary condition of the formation of the general will. The elaboration of the general will entails a process of identification with others. This identification is not reducible to ethnic similitude. It requires the recognition of the other as a human being.” [16]

Notes:

*The Republic by Plato serves as the main source or basis of this essay. All ideas referred from this Socratic dialogue are mentioned, by line number and letter, inside the parentheses provided over the length of this paper.
1. Patrice Canivez, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of people”, Philosophy and Social Criticism: 393.
2. Patrice Canivez, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of people”, Philosophy and Social Criticism: 398.
3. As for the ancient Greeks, they had a tendency to divide the world into different things. They saw everything as divided into parts, which fought with each other all the time. So they correspondingly divided people into groups too, from animals and human, gods and humans, men and women, Greeks and barbarians, slaves and freemen, adults and children, etc.
4. Patrice Canivez, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of people”, Philosophy and Social Criticism: 491.
5. ibid., p. 396
6. “The Polis,” last accessed July 9, 2011, http://heritage-key.com/greece/polis-was-ancient-greek-city-state-greatest-political-system-ever
7. The theoretical ideas of the three mentioned political scientists may differ at some extent, but it is of great value to note that the basic foundations of their respective works come from similar viewpoints regarding people and personhood.
8. John-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, I: 39-40.
9. As far as political theorizing or philosophical views are concerned however, this is not the case; instead, this impossibility serves as a pathway for political analysis to push through. Such concept of individuals creating a whole is therefore a reasonable argument in political and philosophical works like Plato’s Republic.
10. John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding: Book II, Chapter XXVII.
11. Immanuel Kant, Introduction To The Metaphysics of Morals: IV.
12. Philosopher-kings to be exact. See Par. 5 on People and communal living about leaders
13. In essence, through the mutineers’ belief that the pilot is not qualified to run the ship, they assemble and devise a plan; the man, more charismatic but lacks the skill devised the plan, but under the wrong terms and using the opposite of the values that constitute a good personhood.
14. A war fought between an alliance of Greek city-states, led by Athenian General Themistocles, and the Persian Empire of Xerxes I over the course of three days, during the second Persian invasion of Greece.
15. Contrary to popular belief, the army that defended the “hot gates” were more than the “300” Spartans, as they had a total of 4000 allies behind them. But still, this number is still overshadowed by the massive Persian army.
16. Patrice Canivez, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of people”, Philosophy and Social Criticism: 403.