Plato as an Authoritarian Thinker
This essay sets out to examine whether or not Plato is a totalitarian, based on the ideas he put forward in The Republic. To provide a context for discussion, it is helpful to first identify what “totalitarian” means. When Mussolini first introduced the idea of a totalitarian state, the term “totalitarianism” represented a situation where all aspects of a society was subsumed by the state, which possesses certain moral and spiritual properties (Ridgewell, 1970). But instead of relying solely on this broad idea, for the purpose of this essay, I would attempt to compare and match Plato’s ideas with some of the trademark characteristics of totalitarianism, including strict censorship, rigid social structure and hierarchy, as well as concentration of power (Popper, 1995). After the comparisons, the essay would conclude that Plato is indeed totalitarian, with a caveat that Plato should not bear the charges implicated by the negative connotations that usually come with the term.
One key characteristic of totalitarian states is the use of censorship, which is strongly advocated for in Plato’s The Republic. On the education of guardians, Plato believes that it is important to control the contents of poetries, so that they do not misrepresent gods. Although some may try to call this an effort to defend truth and avoid falsehood, Plato was quick to overthrow that defence himself by saying that he is willing to ban stories about Cronus ‘even if they were true’ (378a). As he proceeds with his argument, it was clear that his call for control of narratives is not out of simple consideration of truth or falsehood, but the potential effects they have on the guardians. If a lie was to the benefit of the city, Plato actively calls for it (389b–c; also 414–15). As such, his educational plan seems to be aiming above all else at inculcating the right behaviour in the guardians.
Perhaps at this stage, it is still premature to associate this plan of education with censorship in a totalitarian state, for some may characterise it as a means of protecting the children. One could argue that it is the same type of contemporary educational mind-set that we should do everything we can, such as putting age restrictions on movies, to ensure young children are not exposed to inappropriate materials. Primary schools also stock their libraries carefully to protect children from negative influences of violent and pornographic materials. However, Plato’s plan for censorship is more radical than mere prevention of materials with “bad influences”. In calling for the expurgation of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and the works of Hesiod and Aeschylus. Plato is denouncing the poems that stood at the heart of a cultural education and the works that conveyed the essential elements of Greek religion. The tragedians he rejected were also regarded as the moral teachers of the time. As such, the censorship Plato is advocating for is more extensive than anything familiar to contemporary democracies, for he is subjecting his civilization’s morally most prestigious poetry to stern scrutiny.
Moreover, Plato’s plan simply cannot be regarded as an innocent “children’s protection plan”, as it targets not only the children but the entire society. Socrates specifies that ‘as few as possible’ should know that Cronus castrated his father (378a); that no one, ‘younger or older,’ may hear it said that a god causes evil (380b–c); that mothers will remain ignorant of stories about the gods changing shape, so that they do not pass them along to their children (381e). It is clear that in order to protect his young guardians, Plato is denying the entire city the freedom of accessing information and making judgements for themselves. As such, Plato’s promotion of an extreme form of censorship matches his ideas with one of the striking characteristic of totalitarianism.
Another feature of a totalitarian state is rigid social hierarchy, in which the sacrifice of individual rights and freedom is demanded (or forced) for the collective good. In The Republic, social hierarchy is a defining feature of Plato’s city. He divided man into three classes, the gold, silver and brass or iron. The gold class are the philosopher kings and guardians, the silver class are the auxiliary guardians, and brass or iron class are the producers. This structure is “rigid” as Plato, through his arguments, denied social mobility. Anyone born to be in the brass or iron class are destined to stay there and expected to duly complete their jobs as producers, while the philosopher kings and guardians are carefully selected elite ruling class. Perhaps an apology could be made that the structure is not so much as to divide and classify citizens, but rather, it is created according to Plato’s belief that everyone has one thing that he does best, in which he should specialise. However, even if this is true, the means that Plato set forth to maintain his social structure also sound as cruel and harsh as any typical totalitarian state. For the collective good of the city, he advocates for cold blooded eugenics schemes, in which guardians are carefully bred, selected and educated. Familial love is denied at all stages of a guardian’s growing up.
Another aspect of the ideal city that matches totalitarianism is the concentration of power, and Plato’s strenuous attempt to attribute spiritual and moral properties to the “philosopher class”. The philosopher kings are the monopoliser of political power in the city. They are not elected and cannot be removed from office. The concentration of power in philosopher kings also weaves in with the abovementioned two practices of totalitarianism. These philosopher kings control the ideology in the city by controlling the education system. The justification of their ideology as right and just is provided by their knowledge of the good. In addition, Noble Lie is used to justify their rule and indoctrinate citizens, in other words, it is a way to maintain their status quo and social structure. Further to their concentration of power, the philosopher kings also have a group of loyal auxiliary guardians, who were brought up together in the commune. With the authority and ideology controlled by one class it is apparent that Plato’s city indeed has totalitarian characteristics.
Besides, in what I believe are attempts to justify the nomination of “philosophers” as the rulers, Plato put in strenuous effort to distinguish the “philosopher class” by giving it moral and spiritual superiority. Having established that the guardians are an important upper part of the city, Plato resorted to playing of words to forcibly attribute them “philosopher” properties in the watchdog analogy. The watchdogs have the ability to differentiate enemies and friends, which can be described as a curiosity for knowledge. However, he then goes on to argue that since they are curious for knowledge, they are hence “philosophical”. I believe he is committing the fallacy of equivocation here, for the knowledge in the context of knowing friend or enemy is very different from that in the context of acquiring information for thinking and mental development. Such painful efforts of associating any superior elements of the society with being “philosophical” shows that in his writings, Plato always wants to make “philosophers” appear spiritually and morally superior, which is very convenient for him to later nominate them as the ruling class and justify that decision. However, by being made the ruling class, philosophy becomes the enforcer, instead of the challenger, of authority, further showing that he is constructing a totalitarian state ruled by philosophers with no tolerance of subversion.
In conclusion, Plato’s ideas indeed match the characteristics of totalitarianism. However, it should be noted that although in this essay, the word “totalitarian” is used to describe Plato and his ideas, it is used without any negative connotations that it is usually associated with the term. In Plato’s defence, his conception of the city is not meant to be a serious treaty or manifesto for civil politics, but rather a psychological allegory for the right government of one’s soul. His seemingly totalitarian ideas are all with good reasons and intentions. Since his city is ideal and hypothetical, the philosopher kings are thought to be capable of “expert and virtuous rule” (484d), in other words, they are “good tsars” that are not comparable to Hitler or Mao Zedong, which are imageries that we should not associate with when we call Plato a “totalitarian”.
Bibliography:
Pappas, N. (2013). The Routledge Guidebook to Plato's Republic. (A. Gottlieb, Ed.) Routledge.
Plato. (2007). The Republic. (D. Lee, Trans.) Penguine Classics.
Popper, K. (1995). The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol. I). Routledge.
Ridgewell, C. A. (1970). The "Popular" Concept of Totalitarianism. Simon Fraser
University, Department of Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology . Simon Fraser University.