Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context

272 Pages·1978·6.45 MB·English

by  Ellen Meiksins Wood

ELLEN MEIKSINS WOOD
And NEAL WOOD
Class Ideology
and
Ancient Political Theory
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
in Social Context
© Basil Blackwell igyB
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior permission of
Basil Blackwell & Mott Limited.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Wood, Ellen Meiksins
Class ideology and ancient political theory.
- (Blackwell’s classical studies).
i. Political science 2. Greece - Politics and
government - to 146 B.C.
I. Title II. Wood, Neal
320'.0938 JC73
ISBN O-631-1837O-I
Filmsct in Monophoto Ehrhardt by
Northumberland Press Ltd.,
Gateshead, Tyne and Wear
Printed in Great Britain
by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk
For our
York University Students
Contents
Preface
I Introduction: Perspective and Problems i
1. The Ideology of a Declining Aristocracy i
2. The Charge of Historicism 5
3. The Poverty of Philosophy 10
Notes 12
II The Nature of the Polis 13
1. The Emergence of the Polis 15
2. The Reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes 21
3. The ‘Essence' of the Polis: An ‘ Association Against a
Subjected Producing Class'? 25
4. Class in the Democratic Polis 41
5. The Aristocratic Myth of the Polis 64
Notes 74
III Socrates: Saint of Counter-Revolution 81
1. Life and Associates Reconsidered 83
2. The Intellectual World of the Sophists 87
3. Anti-Democratic Political Ideology 94
4. Philosophic Recommendations: Definition, Knowledge, and
Psyche 103
5. The Case for Athens 111
Notes 115
IV Plato: Architect of the Anti-Polis 119
1. Life and Outlook 121
viii Contents
2. The Protagoras: A Preface to Plato's Political Doctrine 128
3. The Republic: A Redefinition of the Polis 137
4. The Social Conditions of Virtue and the ‘Philosophic
Nature' *43
5. An Idealized Aristocratic Code 154
6. The Priority of Political Doctrine in The Theory of
the Soul
7. The Statesman: A Bridge between the Republic
and the Laws 171
8. The Laws: Subversion of the Athenian Constitution 183
9. The Meaning of the Rule of Law 193
10. The Role of Philosophy^ 200
Notes 202
V Aristotle: Tactician of Conservatism 209
1. Biographical Speculations 210
2. Social Values and Attitudes 214
3. The Aristocratic Ideal 223
4. Oikos and Polis 227
5. Justice, Stasis, 'Polity', and Utopia 237
6. Principles in Practice: The Despotism of Demetrius of
Phalerum 249
Notes 253
VI Conclusion: The Socratics Against Athens 258
Notes 265
Index 267
Preface
This book has been written primarily from the standpoint of political
theory rather than as a work of classical scholarship. We look upon the
book as a study of the founding texts in the long tradition of
Western political thought, and as a statement on the nature of political
theory. Our view is that the classics of political theory are fundamentally
ideological, and that to be understood and appreciated as fully as
possible, they must be much more closely and systematically related to
their social contexts than they often have been in the past. In the case
of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle no analysis of the kind we have
attempted has been done. While A. D. Winspear’s ground-breaking
studies have certainly helped to place Plato (and much less successfully
Socrates) in socio-historical perspective, our book approaches the prob­
lem somewhat differently. Our point of departure is a particular con­
ception of the Greek polis and its significance in the development of
Western social organization, an interpretation that departs from most
standard treatments of the subject. Among other things, we take issue
with the proposition that the essence of the polis is to be found in
the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Chapters on Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle consider these thinkers in light of their lives, class affiliations,
and the social circumstances in which they were writing, and try to
establish that their political theories are essentially partisan in origin
and ideological in content.
We hope that the book will have an appeal beyond a narrow
audience of specialists. By examining the founders of the Western
x Preface
philosophical tradition in the way that we have, we are raising sig­
nificant questions about the social roots of the Western philosophical
enterprise as a whole, questions that should be of singular interest, if,
as Whitehead said, the European philosophical tradition consists
essentially of a series of footnotes to Plato. Moreover, we are respond­
ing deliberately to the ahistorical and abstract character of philosophy
—both political and non-political—as it is customarily read, inter­
preted, and taught in the English-speaking world. The Introduction
raises these broader theoretical questions and considers whether relating
ideas to their social context deprives them of their universal meaning,
or, on the contrary, rescues them from the emptiness of ethereal
abstractions which have no human meaning at all. Finally, our study
may help to illuminate the aristocratic myth about the character of the
demos which, immortalized by the Socratics, has been a cornerstone of
anti-democratic ideology and social theory in the West ever since these
philosophers first recorded their fears of the ‘mob’.
Although both of us have criticized and amended each other’s work,
chapters II and IV were written by E. M. W.; and I, III, and V by
N. W. Chapter VI is a truly joint effort. Chapter III is a considerably
revised version of an essay published as ‘Socrates as Political Partisan’,
Canadian Journal of Political Science, VII (March 1974), 3-31.
We are immensely indebted to Oswyn Murray of Balliol College for
his painstaking and perceptive criticism of the manuscript at several
stages. Naturally, the responsibility for any defects of the book is solely
our own. Thanks are due to those at York University who had the
burden of typing various drafts: Ruth Griffin of Glendon College,
Thetis Leva and Freda Roberts of McLaughlin College, Jo-Anne
Degabriele and the University Secretarial Services. We are also
especially grateful to Lily Banjac of McLaughlin College and Mrs.
Barbara Cohen of Los Angeles, who typed the many last minute
revisions. Lastly, we owe much more than the dedication can possibly
express to our undergraduate and graduate students at York for their
aid through class discussion and debate in helping us shape our ideas
about the ancients.
Toronto, July 1977 Ellen Meiksins Wood
Neal Wood
I
Introduction:
Perspective and Problems
i. The Ideology of a Declining Aristocracy
Our fundamental argument is that a common ideology inspires, informs,
and shapes the political thought of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Their
political analyses and recommendations are far from being immune to
partisanship in the social world in which they lived and wrote. They
were never neutral, disinterested spectators of the conflict that swirled
around them Their theorizing was in response to that conflict, the
energizer of the particular mode of intellectual activity they had chosen.
From a partisan viewpoint, they attempted to grasp the issues and to
indicate a way of resolving the struggle. Out of the chaotic conditions
of the time they sought order of a practical and intellectual nature,
order clearly reflecting their partisanship. They were partisans who
chose a side, making a primary commitment to a position and
defending it with all the weapons of their considerable intellectual
armoury. To argue that the foundation of their political thought is
ideological is not to disparage them, but to offer an explanation for the
very existence of their theorizing, the reason for its being. Since they
put forward practical proposals concerning political and social in­
stitutions and action, it is only common sense to ask whose interests
are being served and whose interests arc being opposed. In terms of the
various contending groups of the time, whose side do the Socratics
2 Introduction: Perspective and Problems
choose, and against whom? Their position is not identical with that of
a particular party or class. Nevertheless their thought does reveal the
nature of their friends and foes in the conflict of their age.
The Socratics, to a very significant degree, defend and justify the
values, attitudes, and way of life of a rapidly declining and increasingly
decadent Athenian social group, the traditional, landed aristocracy in
opposition to the growing numbers of traders, manufacturers, artisans,
shopkeepers, and wage labourers. The aristocracy consisted of leisured
members of noble families, many of whom claimed descent from the
gods themselves. Originally a warrior class, they had become well-
educated, cultured, and refined, living to a great extent upon wealth
from inherited landed property worked by slaves, wage labourers, and
tenants. Intermarrying, they formed an interlocking web of great
families with a distinctive class culture characterized by proud in­
dependence, disdain for labour and the nouveau riche, polished man­
ners, sophisticated form and style of conduct, speech, and apparel, and
devotion to sport, music, and dancing. After Pericles’ death in 429 BC
Athenian politics was no longer dominated by aristocratic values and
leadership. A growing disenchantment with civic affairs and withdrawal
from active political participation typified the most conservative aristo­
crats throughout the fourth century. Because of the destruction of the
land during the Peloponnesian War, many of the nobility suffered
grievous economic losses. In general the country-side was badly hit,
many peasants being forced to give up their holdings and to migrate
to the city wrhere they became wage labourers. By the end of the fourth
century agriculture had ceased to be so central to an increasingly complex
and diversified Athenian economy, and the peasantry—so important in
the fifth century—had given way to urban artisans, shopkeepers, and
wage labourers as the backbone of Athenian democracy. Some country
gentlemen attempted to recoup their heavy financial losses and to rebuild
their diminishing capital by investment in the business world and the
arrangement of profitable marriages with the swiftly increasing class
of wealthy commercial and manufacturing families. In such a time of
troubles, young bucks of distinguished and venerable lineage were ex­
hausting their already depleted fortunes in extravagant consumption:
gambling, heavy drinking, and indulging in a variety of erotic pleasures.
In the midst of their corruption and disintegration Athenians of noble
birth appeared to become increasingly conscious of their identity,
emphasizing the distinction of ‘gentlemen’ (kalot kagalhoi) and the
‘better sort’ (chrestoi) in contrast to ‘bad men’ (poneroi), prosperous
business men (agorawi), and the nouveau riche of the commercial and
manufacturing world or neoploutoi, a term beginning to be used
frequently during the period. Awareness of the growing division be-
The Ideology of a Decltning Aristocracy 3
tween urban and rural life was developing at all levels in Athenian
society, not only between gentry and men of business but also between
peasants and kapeloi or shopkeepers and artisans. From the standpoint
of the peasant, an urban dweller or asteios came to mean ‘city slicker’,
while to a shopkeeper or artisan the agroikos or rural dweller began
to signify ‘country bumpkin’. Fearing further devastation of their estates
as a result of new wars many of the gentry together with the peasants
during the first half of the fourth century espoused peace at any price
as against the more belligerent stance of the urban classes, and in the
second half of the century many of the aristocracy tended to become
pro-Macedonian. At the end of the century most of the famous noble
family names still common during the first half had disappeared from
view.
Obviously, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were not crude apologists
or simplistic rationalizers of the declining aristocracy. They fully recog­
nized and condemned aristocratic degeneration, but thought that the way
of life and values of the nobility could be reformed and revitalized so
as once more to become the foundation of civic life in order to stem
the levelling tide of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, and the
vulgar commercialism that they felt were engulfing Athens and the whole
of Greece. In a significant way their political thought can be con­
ceived of as the supreme intellectual expression of the increasing class
consciousness of the aristocracy during the fourth century, a conscious­
ness that seemed to become more pronounced as the class was pro­
gressively threatened with extinction. If the political thought of the
Socratics was by no means identical with the values and attitudes of
the Athenian aristocracy, there was a commonly shared perspective, an
ideological core, or set of socio-political beliefs also held in part by
non-aristocratic members of the upper classes like Isocrates who
attempted to emulate the nobility. An important component of the
ideology shared by the Socratics with many aristocrats was a deep-rooted
hatred of democracy. The people were held to be ignorant and
incompetent, motivated by narrow selfish interests, contemptuous of law,
disrespectful of their superiors, insolent and vulgar, irresponsible and
fickle, a rabble subject to the blandishments of demagogues, and the
envious victimizers of the noble and wealthy. Denouncing democratic
politics, many of the nobles considered it to be a sign of gentlemanly
virtue to remain aloof and detached from civic life, a trend culminating
in the aristoeratie Epicurus’ withdrawal into the Garden. Likewise many
denounced the esteemed aristocratic leaders of the people of the fifth
century like Pericles who were considered to be traitors to their class
and responsible for the current mob rule. Many nobles were Laconizers
although not necessarily completely uncritical admirers of Sparta as a