Liberty, Democracy, Justice
Can the Center Hold?
The first stanza of William Butler Yeats' much quoted poem, “The Second Coming,” contains the words:
“Things fall apart, the center cannot hold…
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
This declarative can be applied to democracy as an interrogative: can democracy hold in tension “liberty and justice for all”? Plato provides perspective on this question.
Can it be that Plato is not to be painted as a fascist or totalitarian collectivist as is typically his fate?
By no stretch of the imagination can Plato’s Republic be read as a treatise advocating liberty or for that matter democracy. What most people don’t realize is that Plato has issues with democracy because of liberty. But it is how he construes liberty in the context of democracy that creates problems and thus misunderstandings. And this view is fostered by when and where he was living at the time of his works, the Republic, the Statesman and the Laws – all of which impinge on his view of the relationship between freedom, democracy and justice.
Athens at this time was really two cities, a testament of class division. Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War bears witness to the bitter arguments waged between rich and poor that augured against them in the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League. Public opinion in democratic Athens was completely free and unhindered, incredibly malleable, shifting here and there depending on what the popular position was. This circumstance and the city-state of Athens condemning to death his friend Socrates, provided the rough contours of Plato’s jaundiced view of democracy.
For Plato, the overriding principle to cultivate in society was not liberty (freedom), but justice. And to fully understand Plato, one must realize that he feels the same way about us – the people in that society. We, individually, are held to the same standard as society. And this parallelism between society and the people which compose it is what causes much of the confusion about his writing.
Plato offers no utopian political theory. As a former academic who advocates classical liberalism and has taught from the Republic many times, please know our philosopher is no libertarian, but neither is he fascist or totalitarian. As you will discover, Plato embraces a number of ideas that are amenable to the interests of classical liberalism.
Plato’s Metaphor for Justice
In the Republic, Plato speaks of society in metaphorical terms as “our city of words.” The dialogue is essentially about justice as a human virtue. When Socrates (the character Plato uses to make his point) is confronted with the question of whether the just life is the happy life, he suggests that we consider a just city, first. This is a hypothetical city that is, by stipulation, perfectly just. Plato is well aware that no such cities exist, and says as much.
Consider the following: imagine we had a perfectly just city. What would have to prevail in such a city for it to be just? From this Plato believes we will begin to learn about the nature of justice, and thus give us insight into how we should live. His idea is built on the analogy between how a city is organized and how a person’s character is organized. Since “justice” is potentially a property both of societies and of individuals, the features of a just city that make it so would be features that, if we lived according to them, would make us just.
For Plato, a perfectly just city would have a rational economic structure. As classical economist David Ricardo would note centuries later, our society functions better if it operates through a division of labor. Plato sensibly observes that if the various tasks are performed by people who are good at them and enjoy doing them, then (a) we will all be better off as a society, because we will have quality goods, and (b) we will all be better off individually, because people like what they do. There is nothing contrary to classical liberalism about this observation.
Rationality, Harmony, and Peace
It is the parallelism of Plato’s thought that one must keep in mind. The city needs to avoid civil war; the individual needs inner peace and harmony. But Plato’s point is the analogy he offers: just as the city functions best when everyone does the job he or she is best at and enjoys, an individual’s psyche functions best when each “part” is doing what it’s best suited for.
The just city would be characterized by a lack of civil strife; the just person is someone whose passions are moderate, whose decision making is guided by reason, not emotion. The fact that no one may be wise enough to be in charge of the city is literally irrelevant to the analogy. Each individual is, with proper education, capable of pursuing virtue and wisdom by letting reason prevail over one’s emotions.
Plato suggests that the ideal city would have rulers (philosopher-kings; the former use reason, while the latter have authority). They truly know – and only care about – wisdom and justice on their own. They have been educated and trained for many years to assume that responsibility with no interest in or right to own property, achieve personal gain or seek power.
In the real world, we are unlikely to have rulers like that. Plato says as much in Book VIII of the Republic: “I think [this city] can be found nowhere on earth.” But each of us, he asserts, is perfectly capable of using reason to moderate our passions, to be people who seek wisdom, temperance and thus justice – even in a democracy.
Just as the city needs to avoid internal strife, the individual needs inner peace and harmony.
Are we likely to find rulers in the real world who can guarantee absolute political harmony? Of course not – and Plato admits to this. But it rings true that we as individuals would be happier if we were not consumed by unrestrained passions and riven with internal conflict.
Liberty
Plato’s description of the democratic society is one where liberty (not justice) is the guiding principle. To quote from Book VIII of Republic:
Liberty […] is best managed in a democratic city, and for this reason that is the only city in which a man of free spirit cares to live.
This quote in isolation seems to be a glowing endorsement for democracy, even to the 21st century American mind. But such is not the case. For Plato, liberty as a guiding principle is in a word – dangerous. The “spirit of liberty” acknowledges no authority; it works against any sense of privilege or that which has pretensions to moral superiority. It “chafes at the slightest suggestion of servitude,” and recognizes no standards. Anyone wishing to distinguish themselves from the masses is accused of being an “oligarch” (an “elitist” today). It follows that the “spirit of liberty” only recognizes leaders that resemble themselves. Teachers do not teach for they are not willing to assume the authority to do so at risk of sounding disagreeable to the youth; while, the youth themselves lack compass, living only to rile up the elders.
But perhaps the most frightening and consequential charge Plato makes is that a tyrannical regime is the natural product of the lawlessness of democracy’s “spirit of liberty.” The rudderless-ness of democracy leaves people desperate for a protector, as there is no shared tradition amongst the people from which to draw to make their own way in the world. They find their answer in the tyrant, ushering in what Plato sees to be the most miserable state of “liberty” in all political forms. Paranoia and anger are the rule, our bestial, selfish side is completely unleashed, and the possibility of trust is all but extinguished.
Admittedly, at this point it doesn’t look too good for democracy. But there’s more…
Liberty & Justice Opposed?
For any American who grew up hearing, “with liberty and justice for all” at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, one of the most striking aspects of Plato’s Republic will be his opposition between the “spirit of liberty” and justice.
As we saw earlier, justice is the central concern of the Republic, specifically, the possibility of justice as something intrinsically valuable for its own sake. And yet, there are two versions of justice presented in the text. The two attitudes towards justice can be broken down into two distinct views of human nature.
The first premise says that we should see individuals as essentially seeking their own interest. The question of whether it is desirable or not that people seek their own interest is besides the point – this premise suggests that we cannot help it – it’s our nature. In this sense justice can only be found in giving people what they deserve when they make us or others suffer (with the law as the instrument to effect such).
The second premise, Plato’s own, was explained earlier in the metaphor of “our city of words.” Society must seek a harmony that takes precedence over individual desires in order to be just. Principles for the good and peaceable life must be sought and orchestrated like a beautiful melody. In practice this means that in such a society everyone is taught to know one’s place and value each contribution to society as important. Everyone knows, in essence, “what role they play.”
It is, then, a give-and-take – justice and liberty in a democracy. Plato would have us consider that feeling a sense of belonging or striving for justice is altogether impossible in a society that places a premium on innovation, change, gain, and ambition, the “four horsemen” of the “spirit of liberty.” Without a shared sense of direction or vision for the future, justice becomes all but impossible.
What disturbs Plato in his assessment of democracy, and its attendant “spirit of liberty,” is the lack of deference to any authority whatsoever.
Plato simply implores us to listen to one another, as Socrates was so apt to do. For just a moment, he suggests, we suspend our bestial tendencies to jump to conclusions and devour our interlocutors. Justice at all times operates for the sake of the health of the whole. The execution of justice, when properly done, is about setting the values of our society before ourselves in judgment. With an eye to justice, we can understand the role we must play in our society, and know what is important.
Give-and-Take
It seems not unreasonable to view Plato’s outright rejection of democracy as unwarranted, a bit extreme. But based on Plato’s own logic in the Republic, it is not altogether impossible to couple democracy’s liberty with justice. Each of us has the capacity to moderate our emotions with rational thought to better develop the virtues in our life. Famed British economist Karl Polanyi not only subscribed to this possibility, he believed that the very survival of democracy depended on emphasizing and achieving justice in society alongside our free will (liberty). He believed we have no other reasonable choice but to seek virtue in life.
Nonetheless, Plato’s point concerning the growth of the “spirit of liberty” as an encroachment on the project of justice is challenging. But consider this – are we not as individuals already charged in society with the responsibility, authority – and thus liberty – in our democracy to make choices and decide, “no” not this, but “yes” that? Are there not times in the life of a democratic polity where it (i.e. we) must choose to emphasize justice at the expense of liberty? Distribution at the expense of expansion? Not only is this possible, we do it all the time – it is the nature of democratic governments to do this. For Plato, the idea of freedom (liberty) actually plays a key role in his moral and political thought. In the Republic, justice is shown to be beneficial because the just man alone is truly free. The Laws argues that to be free a city must avoid the extremes of liberty and authoritarianism. The legislator should rely on persuasion, not force, so that people willingly obey the laws. The underlying idea is that we are free if we willingly follow the demands of reason rather than being coerced by external forces or unruly desires.
Some scholars contend that realizing this and then acting on it saves us from what Plato called “rebellion against ourselves.” Maybe the health of our democracy depends on it. It’s a give-and-take (liberty and justice in this democracy of ours).
Perhaps Plato deserves another look.
◊ ◊ ◊
F. Andrew Wolf Jr on Daily Philosophy:
Cover image: Midjourney.
