On Slavery in the Republic

“First, in the matter of making slaves of the defeated, do you think it right for Greeks to reduce Greek cities to slavery, or rather that so far as they are able, they should not suffer any other city to do so, but should accustom Greeks [469c] to spare Greeks, foreseeing the danger of enslavement by the barbarians?” “Sparing them is wholly and altogether the better,” said he. “They are not, then, themselves to own Greek slaves, either, and they should advise the other Greeks not to?” “By all means,” he said; “at any rate in that way they would be more likely to turn against the barbarians and keep their hands from one another.”--Plato, Republic 5. 469b-c (Shorey translation).

Twice during the past week [here and here], I have claimed that there are no slaves in the 'true city' (true city (372e)) or "city of pigs") in Plato's Republic (Socrates' first city in speech  (369b-372d)). I believe it matters because it contains the Socratic normative baseline or model/exemplar [or Weberian ideal type] by which to judge and evaluate other political regimes. This baseline is surprisingly close to Smith's system of natural liberty (which is anti-slavery) in quite a few other respects.  As Brian Calvert emphasizes in his (1987) paper, in that city there would be nothing to do for slaves because wage laborers "complete" the city (371d-e). I offer a further argument for this conclusion below.

Mary-Hannah Jones, a former colleague at Wesleyan and a very talented Plato scholar, insisted in comments on these posts that my claim went against an important strain in the scholarly literature (where there was once a lively debate ovser slavery in Plato's Republic, although Vlastos is thought to have settled it in 1968). And indeed, I agree with Popper (who makes very fine points on this issue), and as Vlastos argued persuasively, that in the luxurious city there are slaves (as he notes 433D settles this). These slaves are non-Greeks, the spoil of battle victory. I agree with Calvert that they are a discordant note in this city, but that's further evidence that in this city immoderate desires are not fully checked. (This is also clear from the fact that there has to be an official law that encourages public hypocrisy in the way affection is displayed among older lovers of young boys [403b]).+

But does it follow, then, as Vlastos seem to assume almost tacitly, that there also slaves in the true city? While I hesitate to disagree with Vlastos on Plato interpretation, I think he is wrong (as suggested above). For the true city is pacific and designed to avoid wars of conquest and to be a prey of conquerors because of the lack of luxury (372b-c). So, it follows that in addition there being no reason to have slaves there, there will also be no supply of new slaves (neither Greek nor Barbarian) to tempt the development of the institution. Vlastos completely misses this point.*

I close with two observations. First, Vlastos could have accepted my conclusion because he does not really take the true city seriously, and certainly does not consider it the normative, political ideal. In fact, in his paper, he anachronistically calls the citizens of the luxurious city "utopians" (293ff).  I don't object to anachronism as such, by the way (although it ignores a lot of differences between the luxurious city and the citizens of More's imagined island, Utopia).

To be clear, second, Plato's Socrates never develops, it seems, a sustained moral critique of slavery and there is plenty of evidence that Plato accepts the institution as a de facto part of Greek political life. (I say 'sustained' because in the Meno and in the exchange with Polemarchus, the slave-holder is revealed to be base in non-trivial ways.) But as I noted, unlike Aristotle's conception of human nature, Socrates' anthropology of the true city offers no reason to think there are natural slaves, and even the more complex, and, indeed, hierarchical conception of human nature developed in the luxurious city, leaves, as Calvert notes, no obvious room for slaves by nature or, to use that more Aristotelian phrase, second nature.

 

+I thank Jones for the reference.

*Perhaps he addresses it elsewhere.

Socrates' first city in speech  (369b-372d)

Comments

[Mskochin]

Plato doesn't develop a sustained critique of slavery because he is not opposed to slavery. Plato (and Aristotle) think freedom is valuable only insofar as one is wise enough to use it well; see Vlastos's brilliant early paper "Slavery in Plato's Thought," http://www.jstor.org/stable/2180538?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I have touched on the devaluing of freedom in Plato, Aristotle, and their heirs in "Education after Freedom" (early version http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2420318 ; published version in http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Humanity-Essays-Clifford-ebook/dp/B00V2ZSIBA ); and in "Time and Judgment in Demosthenes' De Corona" ( https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v035/35.1kochin.html )

[Mary-Hannah Jones]

Eric, I’ve really enjoyed this discussion, but appendicitis and surgery left me unable to respond. Concerning your points in On Slavery in the Republic (http://t.co/jeVVAQi76N )
1) “As Brian Calvert emphasizes in his (1987) paper, in that city there would be nothing to do for slaves because wage laborers “complete” the city.”
There were both citizen laborers in Athens, and slaves. That there are citizen laborers in the pig city does not imply that there were no slaves.

2) “For the true city is pacific and designed to avoid wars of conquest and to be a prey of conquerors because of the lack of luxury (372b-c). So, it follows that in addition there being no reason to have slaves there, there will also be no supply of new slaves”
You are certainly right about their being no wars of conquest.
But does that mean that the pig city never is in a war? Well, I think that 372c settles this question (“not begetting offspring beyond their means, taking precaution against poverty or war”). So, since there may be wars of defense, slaves can be taken, and the children of slaves continue to be slave: a continuing source of slaves.
3) “I agree with Calvert that they are a discordant note in this city, but that's further evidence that in this city immoderate desires are not fully checked.”
By 399e the luxurious city has been purged, and its desires must be moderate, because moderation is defined in Book 4 as a virtue of the purged and just city.

If there are slaves in the pig city, why aren’t they mentioned? Well, there are women in the pig city, but they are not mentioned either. Some things are just assumed in every culture. To use a comparison, in Jane Austen’s Sense & Sensibility, “Amongst the objects in the scene, they soon discovered an animated one; it was a man on horseback riding towards them…He dismounted, and giving his horse to his servant, walked back with them to Barton.” Austen says they see a man, but in fact they see two men, but the servant doesn’t count. We modern people would not know there was a servant there if Edward had not been said to give his horse to his servant. It does not occur to Austen to tell us that there was a servant present; it is assumed.

[Schliesser, Eric]

Thank you for critical feedback, Mary-Hannah.
I am a bit puzzled that you ignore the ways in which slavery is an expression of a tyrannical soul as well as something that is inherently dangerous unless there are other citizens around defending the institution (both discussed in book ix). So, while undoubtedly slavery is a fact of Athenian live, it's not as if it is treated without reflection (in addition to the points I make in original post). [That is to say, historical context matters a lot, but we also need to see in which that context is challenged.] My argument does not rest, exclusively, on lack of mention of slaves in true city--the point is, rather, that slavery is not proper to that city.
1. True. But the burden is here shifted on folk who claim there would be; why would slaves exist and what would they do in the city of pigs?
2. Yes, that's an important point and partially shifts possible burdens back. The city of pigs could acquire slaves some day if it were lured into a war. But the city is explicitly not warlike and the passage you quote does not claim there will be wars! Moreover, having slaves is not a proper part of its telos/aim.
3. I think the nature of moderation in the luxurious city is very different in character than it is in the city of pigs. But here we disagree about a deeper issue; I think the city of pigs is in some sense the normative baseline for the luxurious city.

[Joseph Gonda]

Dear Eric, Allow me to update this subject. Your latest entry appeared in 2015. In 2016 an article of mine entitled "An Argument Against Slavery in the Republic" appeared in Dialogue, Vol. 55 No2, 219-244. At this time if you google 'plato slavery republic,' this article is not prominently displayed. However, if the argument of this article is found compelling, then it should me more widely known. First, in our day slavery is intertwined with racism. The latter still plays a prominent role in the politics of many countries. All, racists included, need to know that Plato's authority can no longer be used to support racism. Second, if Plato has been unfairly, albeit unwittingly, maligned on this issue, justice requires that this impression should be corrected. If you google 'jgonda slavery,' you will find the article prefaced by a summary. Each click on it is a gentle, minor blow against racism and for justice. Incidentally, the article's appendix contains a formal, valid proof of the Republic's argument against slavery.

[Eric Schliesser]

It sounds like you agree with me, Dr. Gonda!