No Comment, Quotation — October 21, 2011, 1:13 pm

Plato — The Origins of Democracy

1868_lawrence_alma-tadema_-_phidias_showing_the_frieze_of_the_parthenon_to_his_friends

?????? ?? ? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????, ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ????? ????? ????????, ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ????: ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ??????????? ?? ?????, ??? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. ???? ?? ??????????????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ????????, ?????? ?? ??? ????: ????????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???????????? ?????, ??? ? ??????????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??, ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? — ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????, ?? ????? ???????? — ??????? ?? ??????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????: ??? ??? ???????????, ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??????, ???? ????? ????????????? ????????????.

???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???, ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????. ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????????: ‘??????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????????, ???? ??? ?????? ?????; ?????????? ?? ???: ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ??????????: ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ’ ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????????, ? ??? ?????? ?????;’ ‘??? ??????,’ ??? ? ????, ‘??? ?????? ??????????: ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????, ?? ?????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????: ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????.’

???? ??, ? ????????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????????, ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ? ????? ? ????? ????? ????????????, ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????????, ??? ?????????, ?? ?? ???—???????, ?? ??? ????—???? ?? ??? ????????? ????????? ?????? ?????, ?? ??? ??? ??????????? ????? ????? ??? ??????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ? ?? ????? ??????. ????, ? ????????, ?????? ?????.

And now that man was partaker of a divine portion, he, in the first place, by his nearness of kin to deity, was the only creature that worshipped gods, and set himself to establish altars and holy images; and secondly, he soon was enabled by his skill to articulate speech and words, and to invent dwellings, clothes, sandals, beds, and the foods that are of the earth. Thus far provided, men dwelt separately in the beginning, and cities there were none; so that they were being destroyed by the wild beasts, since these were in all ways stronger than they; and although their skill in handiwork was a sufficient aid in respect of food, in their warfare with the beasts it was defective; for as yet they had no civic art, which includes the art of war. So they sought to band themselves together and secure their lives by founding cities. Now as often as they were banded together they did wrong to one another through the lack of civic art, and thus they began to be scattered again and to perish.

So Zeus, fearing that our race was in danger of utter destruction, sent Hermes to bring respect and right among men, to the end that there should be regulation of cities and friendly ties to draw them together. Then Hermes asked Zeus in what manner then was he to give men right and respect: “Am I to deal them out as the arts have been dealt? That dealing was done in such wise that one man possessing medical art is able to treat many ordinary men, and so with the other craftsmen. Am I to place among men right and respect in this way also, or deal them out to all?” “To all,” replied Zeus; “let all have their share: for cities cannot be formed if only a few have a share of these as of other arts. And make thereto a law of my ordaining, that he who cannot partake of respect and right shall die the death as a public pest.”

Hence it comes about, Socrates, that people in cities, and especially in Athens, consider it the concern of a few to advise on cases of artistic excellence or good craftsmanship, and if anyone outside the few gives advice they disallow it, as you say, and not without reason, as I think: but when they meet for a consultation on civic art, where they should be guided throughout by justice and good sense, they naturally allow advice from everybody, since it is held that everyone should partake of this excellence, or else that states cannot be.

Plato, Protagoras, 322a–323a (433 B.C.E., W.R.M. Lamb, trans.)

Can virtue be taught? That is the subject of the Platonic dialogue from which this passage is drawn. Socrates is squaring off here against his somewhat older rival Protagoras. It’s predictable Platonic material, grounds for endless and indeterminate debate.

Midway through the dialogue, things take an interesting turn. Protagoras argues that in the polis, the views of all citizens are worthy of attention, and he offers as support what can only be called a democratic creation myth. The beginning of his tale looks like the usual Prometheus story. But then he adapts it to his purpose. After receiving their first set of gifts, Protagoras says, men still did not seem capable of living with one another; nor were they able to build cities or wage war. They lacked what W.R.M. Lamb translates as “the civic art.” The original Greek is ????????? ??????, for which the contemporary English cognates would be “political technique.” But it takes some scrambling to elaborate this: “political” in the Greek sense would relate to social interaction — so not to politics as it appears in newspaper reportage today. “Technique,” meanwhile, would refer to all the arts, skills, and crafts that humans are capable of acquiring through inductive reasoning.

In Protagoras’s account, the gods’ remedy for the human shortcoming in civic art is two further gifts. One is ?????, which Lamb renders as “respect,” and which indeed involves a concern for the positive opinion of others, but which might equally be rendered more negatively, as a sense of shame. The other gift is ????, which Lamb calls “right,” but which might better be described as the spirit of moral justice. So the skills that are essential to turning man into a political animal are these: a sense of concern for the feelings and opinions of others, and a sense of justice as an abstract and moral concept.

Just as important, though, is the question of endowment. Who receives these gifts? The answer is all humans. Not simply the elites. Not simply the members of one polis, and indeed not even just the Greeks, though they are surely the people of antiquity most conscious of these gifts, and most intent on unlocking them.

Protagoras goes on to draw out the message of his legend: While it’s true that cities turn for guidance to the opinions of persons possessed of certain special skills, when it comes to the ????????? ?????? — to the political arts; which is to say, when the question at hand is one of governance — all citizens need to be consulted. If the people of the cities are guided throughout by justice and good sense, he says, “they naturally allow advice from everybody, since it is held that everyone should partake of this excellence, or else that states cannot be.”

To be sure, the voice we hear in this passage is neither that of Socrates, nor his student Plato — elitists who doubt profoundly the wisdom of the masses, and who disdain democracy. In the course of the dialogue, Socrates struggles to conceal his contempt for the idea that carpenters and fishermen could have something useful to say about important matters of state. He would rather see rule by a dictatorial philosopher-king. But in the lines Plato composes for Protagoras, we hear the spirit of Athenian democracy, as well as its basic premises: acceptance of the fundamental worth of all citizens, and faith in democratic process.

Protagoras’s words provide an important foil when contemplating the progress of American democracy. During the golden age of Athenian democracy, when Protagoras was written, decisions concerning collective security belonged to the democratic franchise. A popular assembly would deliberate not only whether war was to be waged and who would be placed in command, but tactics, punishments, and the treatment of allies and foes. Generals and admirals who failed to perform their missions, or even whose victory was tempered by an offense against the dignity of the fallen, would be called to account.

America has always been a representative democracy, rather than a direct one, but at the time of the country’s founding, decisions about national security were divided between the legislative and executive branches in hopes of promoting broad popular discussion and achieving national consensus on important issues. Over the past few decades, however, the public space for discussion and participation in national-security decision-making has steadily narrowed. In Protagoras’s terms, political art has succumbed to the dark magic of the technician.

The arguments for an executive monopoly are by now familiar: only national security “experts” are said to have the skills and the information necessary to make judgments about collective security. The uninformed public cannot be entrusted with the right to decide its fate. And yet, the same people making these arguments routinely classify basic information, thereby ensuring the public is kept uniformed. Such secrecy suffocates democracy. Judgment about matters once viewed as the essence of the democratic franchise has passed into the hands of a murky and unelected class of elite technocrats — civil servants with high-level security classifications — who alone make the vital decisions that affect the security of the state, decisions that are often matters of life and death for their fellow citizens and others. Protagoras suggests for us a question: Is such a system really a democracy? And is it a state that respects the abilities and rights of its citizens?


The Dutch painter Laurence Alma-Tadema (who later moved to England, was knighted, and became a member of the Royal Academy) was one of the more striking and profound nineteenth-century chroniclers of classical antiquity. In this painting, the master architect Phidias is exhibiting his work, specifically the frieze of the Parthenon, to a select audience, among them figures who appear in Protagoras: Socrates, Plato, Alcibiades, and Pericles. Anthropomorphized depictions of ????, the goddess of moral justice, appear in the Parthenon’s ornamentation.


In 1788, the Oxford musicologist Philip Hayes composed a remarkable round for the text of Psalm 137, entitled “By the waters of Babylon.” It speaks of the pain and suffering of a people held in bondage, and their longing for freedom and return, and it gained instant popularity for its simplicity and perfection of expression, emerging as an anthem of the anti-slavery movement in Hayes’s lifetime and the decades that followed. It has become better known in recent times thanks to a performance by Don McLean:

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Chances a loan cosigner in the United States will end up repaying some part of the loan:

2 in 5

Americans of both sexes prefer the body odors of people with similar political beliefs.

The case was assigned to a Trump-appointed judge, who ruled that, despite the 2010 legislation, the acting director was Mulvaney, who received about $475,000 in contributions from the financial, insurance, and real estate industries during his 2016 congressional campaign, including $9,200 from JPMorgan Chase, which was fined $4.6 million by the CFPB for failing to provide consumers with information about checking account denials.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today