First of all, then, let us consider what will be the manner of life of men thus provided. Will they not make bread and wine and garments and shoes? And they will build themselves houses and carry on their work in summer for the most part unclad and unshod and in winter clothed and shod sufficiently? And for their nourishment they will provide meal from their barley and flour from their wheat, and kneading and cooking these they will serve noble cakes and loaves on some arrangement of reeds or clean leaves, and, reclined on rustic beds strewn with bryony and myrtle, they will feast with their children, drinking of their wine thereto, garlanded and singing hymns to the gods in pleasant fellowship, not begetting offspring beyond their means lest they fall into poverty or war?”--Republic 372a-c.
As regular readers know (see here and more extensively here), I tend to think that the so-called 'city of pigs' (Glaucon's term) is, in fact, Socrates normative ideal (because he calls it the true or healthy polity (372e), and also because it actually fits his definition of justice and is not warlike). I believe I am rather solitary in my opinion on this, but I recently was heartened to learn that the distinguished political theorist and metaphysician, Ruth Groff, holds the same view. the previous sentence. This post is intended to elaborate features of the model of the best city that, to the best of my opinion, don't receive much attention.
The origin of political life, and justice, is grounded in need, and the necessity of others in meeting our needs (369), according to Socrates. That is, humans are not self-sufficient or in this sense god-like. That's the foundation axiom of Socratic political theory. Until self-repairing robots exist, no person can go it alone.* Socrates recognizes a hierarchy of basic needs: food, which is essential to survival, shelter, and then clothes. Communal life is necessary, then, to meet the basic goods that supply our basic needs.
There are many forms of communal life that can meet such basic needs. But, interestingly enough, Socrates notes that the division of labor by specialization will do so best. And strikingly, in the origin story of justice (which turns out to be an origin story of political life), it's a communal life with the the addition of the division of labor that turns a mere (let's call it) association into a polity.
This division of labor, in turn, is grounded, first, in natural difference (370ab) such that natural aptitudes can be expressed productively in different fashion. Unlike the feverish city (and much else in Plato), these natural differences have no normative consequences. (In this sense Socrates anticipates (recall), say, Elizabeth Anderson.) In the true or healthy city everybody contributes, and each contribution is, in principle, valued equally. But second, it is grounded in a kind of craft-or practical knowledge that helps regulate life in the true city.
Socrates, gives two examples of such craft-knowledge: one is the farmer, who needs to plan ahead, and also has a tight window to, say, harvest.+ The other is quoted above: the true/healthy city is capable of (to echo Malthus's term) a moral check or to regulate population control in light of economic conditions, that is, the basic needs can be met. In fact, Socrates is clear this polity is capable of preventing becoming overpopulated.** Socrates leaves unexplained whether they practice preventive birth control, which would entail that they can judge their needs about a year ahead, or, more likely, whether they practice abortion or exposure of children in times of scarcity. Either way, there is a linear relationship between population and economic/subsistence, such that in this polity there is neither accumulation nor starvation (nor a tendency toward aggression with others).
Because there is no accumulation, there is no need for either the magistrate nor marriage institution in this rather anarchic polity. The former is not needed because there are no grounds for conflict; the latter is not needed because there are no resources to pass on to a privileged subset of the population. This is a polity that is incapable of feeding unproductive mouths very long. This fact, entails that presumably children are raised in common, and put to work early. It also entails that women are co-equal in the workforce. And that there is no need for physicians [UPDATE: see below]++ because these would only manage to keep unproductive citizens around. It's a healthy city, in part, not just because strife is absent and people contribute equally to common welfare, but also the diseased are not kept alive and fed for very long.
A further omission can be explained by this. While there is religion, there are no priests nor sacrifices; this is a polity that can't afford to feed a superfluous class nor bribe the Gods. And so clearly fits Socrates's ideals about true or joyful (singing, hyms, etc.) religion. (This is missed by Glaucon, who implies that this model is beastly without higher things ) From Socrates's perspective, institutionalized, priestly religion is a luxury good.
*And then, of course, one may well wonder why the robots will keep that person around.
+The example is also significant because it shows the tight connection between reasonable expectations and conceptions of justice once agriculture is around. Farmers are always engaged in long term planning and for that to work they need to have reasonable expectations not just about what would work, but that the cattle/harvest is undisturbed.
**It also wishes to avoid war, so the natural safety valve for overpopulation is absent.
++UPDATE: The eminent scholar, Eric Brown points out to me, correctly, that Republic 369D suggests this city has physicians where a σῶμα θεραπευτήν literally, 'carer for the body' is included. I did not think of a physician because I would have expected Plato to use 'ἰατρός.'But earlier in the Republic (341C), there had been an exchange in which the question was what the proper end (or even word) of a physician (ἰατρός) is, and healer (θεραπευτής) had been the correct answer. So, while I think it is important that only bodies and not spirits/souls (etc.) are object of care here (which had inclined me to think this character is more akin to a gym-coach), I think it's clear Prof. Brown is in the right.
I think Richard Tuck holds this as well.
Posted by: Aaron Garrett | 09/13/2018 at 03:39 PM