In Book IV of The Republic, the three classes of Greek society are outlined to the the businessman, the auxiliaries, and the Guardians. The Businessmen are those with desire/appetite for wealth, auxiliaries with the spirit to protect the city-state, and the guardians rule the city with their wisdom. According to Plato, justice is best achieved through allowing each class to accomplish its own tasks and not interfering with those of another.
In Confucian philosophy, Chinese society is separated in four classes: the gentleman/scholar (士), the agricultural class (農), the craftsman (工), and the tradesman(商) in the order of higher status in society. In his philosophy, this hierarchy achieves the most harmony. However, in contrary to Plato, Confucius states that "There should be no distinction of classes" (Analects 15.39) and supports the idea that any virtuous plebeian that cultivates his qualities can become a gentleman.
Within both social structures, men have the potential to reach a higher standing in their society but with categorical differences from one another. In Platonic society, each individual class attains its own idea of "success" - a wealthy trader, a military general, or a successful ruler. However, the Guardians are ultimately the rulers above the two other classes. In Confucian society, individuals are urged to practice virtue throughout life and gradually transcend the agricultural, craftsman, or tradesman classes into being a scholar.
Which social structure do you think is the better? Is it better to examine society under the lenses of justice or harmony? Furthermore, which one provides better class mobility and equal opportunity?
You bring up an interesting point. I enjoy reading these two books (texts?) together because despite the difference in location, one can still draw parallels between the social structures within the two of them. I think that the idea of a society based off of harmony, in which one is held in higher standing by being knowledgeable is better than one based off of the idea of justice. However, a society where people are urged to be virtuous and wise is one that is hardly plausible. In my opinion, the theories talked about in Republic are in many ways more realistic. For instance, when you mention how in Analects Confucius believes that even a plebeian can become a gentleman, I regard this as an unobtainable goal, that, in a perfect world would exist, but not in this one.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is necessarily fair to say that plebeians could not be considered a gentleman. Confucius even directly says that it is possible for people of lower social ranking to do so. All that is required of being a gentleman is that one shows respect for the relationships involving those who are in authority to them, such as the ones we discussed in class. To this end, a lower class person could in fact become a gentleman so long as they follow the laws, rituals, traditions, etc. that apply to them.
DeleteHowever, I do not think that either philosophy provide for much social mobility. Both of them seem to possess a sort of "be the best you possible" attitude, insofar as they both emphasis the fact that one should strive to do the job that they have to the best of their abilities. Neither of them stress or give an outline for moving along the social hierarchy.
I think both attributes of justice and harmony are evident in both societies. And so, I think we have to examine both societies in consideration of justice and harmony.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s Republic, a just social structure would have harmony, because individuals will adhere to their role, and will be able to specialize in a particular function. They will be doing what is in their nature to do. If they don’t, they will feel unsatisfied. I related this concept to sleep and how integral it is to our life. For example, if we were to disregard sleep, we would be going against our nature, and will thus, cause an imbalance (emotional and physical).
In a Confucian society, the justice and harmony that are described are different from those in The Republic. There will be justice when everyone practices virtue and morals, and there will be harmony when all transcend their roles and become humane. It is hard to define which is better, because they work according to different goals.
I don't think the Platonic society with the perfect city would have much class mobility, since ideally, each person within his or her class would be content with their role in society, which they are best at doing, and wouldn't have the wish to move up the social ladder. I think the whole concept of equal opportunity is quite modern. Back in the days (in almost every country), nations were structured around some sort of hierarchy with some figure at the top (guardians), and the peasants/plebeians at the bottom. Of course, those with a higher class would gain more and better opportunities than those at the bottom. Additionally, since the Platonic society is an ideal, I think it's possible for the idea of the "gentleman" to exist in all classes.
ReplyDelete