blog




  • Essay / A discussion of whether Plato was a feminist

    Plato's Republic proposes an ideal city, in which there are three major classes of citizens; first, the city is governed by a guardian class, also known as philosopher-kings, whose decision is enforced by the auxiliary class; warriors who defend the state against both external attacks and internal conflicts. Finally, the largest class in society, the producers; a group of citizens who perform all work, excluding warriors and rulers. The producing class, for example, includes doctors, lawyers, and carpenters. This division of the citizen was supposed to represent the Platonic ideology of the tripartite soul; reason, spirit and appetite, where each class is dominant in an element of the psyche. The producing class is dominant by appetite, the auxiliary class by mind, hence its capacity to defend the State, and the guardians dominant by reason, that is to say they are the most able to govern the city. What is interesting about this proposition is that Plato argues that there is no reason why women should not be accepted into the ruling classes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay Plato uses Socratic dialogue in Book V of the Republic to argue that as long as they meet the same requirements as men , women can be part of the class of auxiliaries or tutors and should therefore receive the same education and training as men. This was an incredibly radical position to take in contemporary Athenian society. This is why, in his dialogue, Plato describes arguments that would be put forward against his proposals, which Socrates then denies. The first argument offered against Socrates' suggestion regarding female helpers and guardians is that women and men have different natures and that, as societal roles are determined by nature, women and men should play different roles in the company. However, Socrates cleverly points out the futility of this argument with the analogy of bald and shaggy men. Socrates notes how (by the same reasoning) if bald men become shoemakers, since they have a different nature than long-haired men, we should forbid long-haired men from tinkering. This illustrates how differences in nature have no impact on the ability to govern, in the same way that hair (or lack thereof) has no impact on the ability to tinker. Socrates goes on to discuss two types of differences in nature, in which he points out that the difference between a male and female physician has no impact on ability, compared to the difference between a male physician and a male carpenter. This is an important distinction because the difference in nature is only relevant with respect to the ability to perform a particular job. Regarding this controversy, Julia Annas argues that Plato's argument is not valid against an anti-feminist, because he agrees with their ideology. For example, Socrates asks “are there professions that contribute to the management of the state and that only a woman can perform?” ", assumes that the answer to this question is obviously "no", and therefore asserts that "one sex is, therefore, to speak, far beaten in all areas by the other". Annas points out that claiming that men can outperform women in everything is not a feminist argument. I think this willingness to accept that women are less capable than menis inherently anti-feminist, and it is extremely important that Annas points out this gap in Plato's argument. It fails to assert that there are no specifically male skills, when a true feminist would deny the assumptions on which this argument is based. Lesser, however, argues that Annas's view does not harm Plato's case, because Plato does not intend to argue that women are as good as men, but rather asserts that the differences between Gender has little effect on differences between individuals' abilities to accomplish certain tasks. I agree with Lesser to some extent; With regard to this particular section of Plato's argument, Annas's criticism is perhaps somewhat misplaced. However, it seems that Lesser is focusing a little too much on the content of Annas's argument, rather than the key issues it highlights. The way Plato frames this argument highlights his inherent misogynistic ideology, and although the Annas controversy does not directly undermine the argument, it demonstrates the anti-feminism of Plato's ideals. Another dispute discussed is that women bearing, giving birth and raising children would affect their ability to rule as a guardian/helper class. This argument allows Plato to introduce his proposal for communal living, which included the abolition of the nuclear family so that women would not raise their own children. The ideology behind this proposal was that the most important contribution to organizing a community is unity and that concepts such as "mine" and "yours" favor individual goals, thereby breaking that unity . Socrates argues that destroying the nuclear family will move us toward unified goals because people would assume that each child belongs to them, which would encourage people to participate in a collective relationship. Removing the privatization of feelings would coordinate the city toward a common interest invested in the betterment of society, in which individual desires are of secondary importance. I think it is important to emphasize here that Plato's admission of female guardians is clearly not a feminist position, as it does not take into account the desires of women, nor with the aim of liberation. Julia Annas draws attention to the fact that Plato discusses the liberating effect that community living will have on society, but does not describe the liberating effect on the position of women in the home – rather it is presented as something something from which man is freed. It is quite obvious that Plato's reasoning for the abolition of the nuclear family is not based on the fact that women currently suffer from lack of opportunity; rather, the state would benefit from having the best possible citizens, and it logically follows that potential attributes/qualities are wasted if half of those citizens stay at home (as is the case with the nuclear family). I completely agree with Annas' position; Plato is not a feminist based on women's rights or liberation, he simply promotes the use of women to provide utility to the state. This point is further emphasized by Plato's authoritarian ideology; If a woman did not want to be a guardian, Plato would still force her to serve the state. This only highlights the lack of feminist intent behind Plato's ideals; he clearly does not consider the liberation or desires of the women whose lives he intends to change, but simply sees them as a byproduct of the health of the state. However, Lesser argues that Plato would deny Annas's criticism that personal fulfillment and.