ebook img

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

272 Pages·1978·6.454 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

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

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

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.