Plato's Republic postulates that an orderly society can only be maintained through a series of "noble lies." Plato describes an example of this through a fictional, stratified society, where it is believed that there are different types of metal put into the inhabitants' blood by the gods.
1) The ruling class has gold.
2) Auxiliaries have silver.
3) Farmers have bronze.
4) The children of the ruling class mostly have gold, except some will have to be demoted to lower classes, and so they will be told that they have silver or bronze.
5) Some auxiliaries and farmers, likewise, will be promoted, and so will be told that they have silver or gold blood.
Plato states that, even though it is clearly false, if people believed it, then orderly society would result. Plato preferred this to democracy, which he referred to as "mob rule." It must be remembered, of course, that ancient Greek democracy was a true "direct democracy," where legislation was voted on directly by the people, with no representatives or intermediaries. Modern "democracies" are really "republics" that mainly practice a form of "representative democracy." As such, Plato's philosophy still theoretically applies here.
Plato's Republic and the concept of the "noble lie," in particular, became more important, in terms of 20th century political science. Leo Strauss (yes, that guy) posed the question as to whether "myths" were needed to maintain society. Strauss cited two noble lies in Plato's Republic that he considered to be requirements for all governments:
1) That the state's land belongs to it, even though it was likely stolen from its previous owners.
2) That citizenship is rooted in more than an accident of birth.
Strauss, like Plato, would thus imply that both statements were obviously false from a historical point-of-view. While the first statement conjures up immediate images of colonial conquest of aboriginal lands, we can also take notice of any number of "sacred cows," from the ancient Indo-European migrations into...well...India through Europe, the Germanic/Roman conquering of Celtic lands, and even the Israelites' conquest of Canaan. But even then, we could probably go even further than that, such as the probable Celtic displacement of the original Cro-Magnon peoples (who themselves displaced Neandertals, driving them into extinction), and the displaced Canaanites, themselves, would likely have displaced any number of now-lost civilizations, as the Levant has been well-populated for over 10,000 years.
The question of the meaning of "citizenship," I believe, is the more contentious of the two. We have, more or less, accepted that our national borders are generally a mixture of tradition and present national identity, and we run into border disputes when those two ideas aren't reconciled. Kosovo, for instance, is claimed by Serbia out of tradition, being an important place in Serbian cultural history, whereas, in terms of the national identity of the vast majority of the people living there, it hasn't been Serbian for a very long time. Plus, I doubt that there are very few Americans or Australians alive today who don't understand that these lands were, essentially, taken from the indigenous peoples who lived there, but accept it merely as a consequence of long-ago history. These lands are "ours" inasmuch as it has become an established tradition. "Citizenship," however, is more difficult, if only because our relation to the state is much less tangible than issues of land.
Politics has made the noble lie of "citizenship" far more murkier than before, because of the temptation to tie the very definition of "the Republic" to a particular political ideology or even a political party. To complicate things further, capitalist economic theory, particularly in terms of free trade/globalism, simultaneously questions and subverts the purpose of the state.
The "nation-state," as organically grew out of medieval Europe, was the immediate result of creating "super-tribes." That is, farewell to the Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Normans; welcome to "England." And, like any tribal structure, "citizenship" was, essentially, ethnic in nature. Conversely, any outside "ethnicity" was an enemy or potentially one worthy of distrusting. Politics, in general, exploits this idea of "citizenship," and with a multi-party representative democracy, each party generally boils down to who is the most, say, "American" (or "Canadian," "British," "French," "German," etc.). Granted, this notion is much more distinct in American politics, where the Right, in particular, has been claiming, more or less, that the Left is "un-American" (and probably vice versa), but I believe this to be applicable to each nation. Each political party aspires to be epitome of "national identity," and, as such, its laws will be respected by its "citizenry."
Globalism/free trade, by its nature, looks to a world that is "post-tribal" in its outlook. In pure economics, at its most basic, the whole world's value is judged solely on a product and its price, and labor is judged in equal terms. Nonetheless, we know this to be inapplicable to our daily lives, at a microeconomic level. "Free trade," to take a page from Plato's Republic, is for the "gold-blooded"--that is, the wealthy and their businesses. "Citizenship" may have traditionally been defined through ethnic and family ties, and later added to include occupational necessities, but a quick perusal through many nations' immigration laws will reveal that "citizenship" can be bought, at the right price, usually if you have an extra $500,000-$1 million lying around. Likewise, "free trade" is certainly not "free" for the "bronze-blooded," as a lengthy trip across international borders will reveal that there are strict limits as to what you can buy and bring back with you, without being subject to penalizing duty assessments.
Perhaps if you're like me, you're asking yourself what "citizenship" means in the 21st century, and what "noble lie," if any, is required for us to rally around it. Irving Kristol, considered to be the founder of American neoconservatism, took on a more Platonist answer to this question:
Now before we get tempted and turn this into a fairly predictable conservative/neo-con bashing thread, let me offer my opinion that Kristol is both an arrogant demagogue and correct, inasmuch as his statement adequately describes the nature of government--which applies to all electable political parties. Leo Strauss, although being the intellectual father behind neoconservatism, was noted to be skeptical of both the politics of "progress" and "return"; and, in fact, was automatically suspicious of anything claiming to solve an old, long-running political dilemma. He believed that any attempt to resolve the debate between "rationalism" and "traditionalism" in politics would inevitably lead to tyranny. History provided these examples for Strauss, as well, through the "ultra-rationalist" ideology of communism and the Soviet Union, and the "ultra-traditionalist" ideology of fascism with Germany, Italy, and Spain (this is where Jonah Goldberg's book equating "fascism" with "liberalism" deserves to be shredded and forgotten).
In the current U.S. elections, we are, essentially, having a referendum on what it means to be an "American"--just as it is the same referendum in each and every election. As many philosophers of various stripes have noted (including Straussians), "America" is more than a nation; it is also an idea. Both the Republicans and the Democrats, as such, are competing to be that "idea," again, just like in every election. But as Plato, Strauss, and Kristol each note, implicitly, the quest for such power can take unexpected turns. Can we, as Americans, trust the "noble lie" that we are being fed? Does McCain represent the "noble lie" of Iraq being a cornerstone of future American freedom anymore than Obama represents the oft-promised, yet often ill-delivered quest for "change"? Is Huckabee's "Joe Everyman" persona anymore genuine than Hillary Clinton's "Iron Lady" image? And, perhaps most importantly, can the "noble lie" be maintained, in the face of mass information that can be accessed by the gold, silver, and bronze-blooded alike? What does that mean for the future of "citizenship" and the Republic itself?
We live in interesting times, indeed.
1) The ruling class has gold.
2) Auxiliaries have silver.
3) Farmers have bronze.
4) The children of the ruling class mostly have gold, except some will have to be demoted to lower classes, and so they will be told that they have silver or bronze.
5) Some auxiliaries and farmers, likewise, will be promoted, and so will be told that they have silver or gold blood.
Plato states that, even though it is clearly false, if people believed it, then orderly society would result. Plato preferred this to democracy, which he referred to as "mob rule." It must be remembered, of course, that ancient Greek democracy was a true "direct democracy," where legislation was voted on directly by the people, with no representatives or intermediaries. Modern "democracies" are really "republics" that mainly practice a form of "representative democracy." As such, Plato's philosophy still theoretically applies here.
Plato's Republic and the concept of the "noble lie," in particular, became more important, in terms of 20th century political science. Leo Strauss (yes, that guy) posed the question as to whether "myths" were needed to maintain society. Strauss cited two noble lies in Plato's Republic that he considered to be requirements for all governments:
1) That the state's land belongs to it, even though it was likely stolen from its previous owners.
2) That citizenship is rooted in more than an accident of birth.
Strauss, like Plato, would thus imply that both statements were obviously false from a historical point-of-view. While the first statement conjures up immediate images of colonial conquest of aboriginal lands, we can also take notice of any number of "sacred cows," from the ancient Indo-European migrations into...well...India through Europe, the Germanic/Roman conquering of Celtic lands, and even the Israelites' conquest of Canaan. But even then, we could probably go even further than that, such as the probable Celtic displacement of the original Cro-Magnon peoples (who themselves displaced Neandertals, driving them into extinction), and the displaced Canaanites, themselves, would likely have displaced any number of now-lost civilizations, as the Levant has been well-populated for over 10,000 years.
The question of the meaning of "citizenship," I believe, is the more contentious of the two. We have, more or less, accepted that our national borders are generally a mixture of tradition and present national identity, and we run into border disputes when those two ideas aren't reconciled. Kosovo, for instance, is claimed by Serbia out of tradition, being an important place in Serbian cultural history, whereas, in terms of the national identity of the vast majority of the people living there, it hasn't been Serbian for a very long time. Plus, I doubt that there are very few Americans or Australians alive today who don't understand that these lands were, essentially, taken from the indigenous peoples who lived there, but accept it merely as a consequence of long-ago history. These lands are "ours" inasmuch as it has become an established tradition. "Citizenship," however, is more difficult, if only because our relation to the state is much less tangible than issues of land.
Politics has made the noble lie of "citizenship" far more murkier than before, because of the temptation to tie the very definition of "the Republic" to a particular political ideology or even a political party. To complicate things further, capitalist economic theory, particularly in terms of free trade/globalism, simultaneously questions and subverts the purpose of the state.
The "nation-state," as organically grew out of medieval Europe, was the immediate result of creating "super-tribes." That is, farewell to the Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Normans; welcome to "England." And, like any tribal structure, "citizenship" was, essentially, ethnic in nature. Conversely, any outside "ethnicity" was an enemy or potentially one worthy of distrusting. Politics, in general, exploits this idea of "citizenship," and with a multi-party representative democracy, each party generally boils down to who is the most, say, "American" (or "Canadian," "British," "French," "German," etc.). Granted, this notion is much more distinct in American politics, where the Right, in particular, has been claiming, more or less, that the Left is "un-American" (and probably vice versa), but I believe this to be applicable to each nation. Each political party aspires to be epitome of "national identity," and, as such, its laws will be respected by its "citizenry."
Globalism/free trade, by its nature, looks to a world that is "post-tribal" in its outlook. In pure economics, at its most basic, the whole world's value is judged solely on a product and its price, and labor is judged in equal terms. Nonetheless, we know this to be inapplicable to our daily lives, at a microeconomic level. "Free trade," to take a page from Plato's Republic, is for the "gold-blooded"--that is, the wealthy and their businesses. "Citizenship" may have traditionally been defined through ethnic and family ties, and later added to include occupational necessities, but a quick perusal through many nations' immigration laws will reveal that "citizenship" can be bought, at the right price, usually if you have an extra $500,000-$1 million lying around. Likewise, "free trade" is certainly not "free" for the "bronze-blooded," as a lengthy trip across international borders will reveal that there are strict limits as to what you can buy and bring back with you, without being subject to penalizing duty assessments.
Perhaps if you're like me, you're asking yourself what "citizenship" means in the 21st century, and what "noble lie," if any, is required for us to rally around it. Irving Kristol, considered to be the founder of American neoconservatism, took on a more Platonist answer to this question:
Now before we get tempted and turn this into a fairly predictable conservative/neo-con bashing thread, let me offer my opinion that Kristol is both an arrogant demagogue and correct, inasmuch as his statement adequately describes the nature of government--which applies to all electable political parties. Leo Strauss, although being the intellectual father behind neoconservatism, was noted to be skeptical of both the politics of "progress" and "return"; and, in fact, was automatically suspicious of anything claiming to solve an old, long-running political dilemma. He believed that any attempt to resolve the debate between "rationalism" and "traditionalism" in politics would inevitably lead to tyranny. History provided these examples for Strauss, as well, through the "ultra-rationalist" ideology of communism and the Soviet Union, and the "ultra-traditionalist" ideology of fascism with Germany, Italy, and Spain (this is where Jonah Goldberg's book equating "fascism" with "liberalism" deserves to be shredded and forgotten).
In the current U.S. elections, we are, essentially, having a referendum on what it means to be an "American"--just as it is the same referendum in each and every election. As many philosophers of various stripes have noted (including Straussians), "America" is more than a nation; it is also an idea. Both the Republicans and the Democrats, as such, are competing to be that "idea," again, just like in every election. But as Plato, Strauss, and Kristol each note, implicitly, the quest for such power can take unexpected turns. Can we, as Americans, trust the "noble lie" that we are being fed? Does McCain represent the "noble lie" of Iraq being a cornerstone of future American freedom anymore than Obama represents the oft-promised, yet often ill-delivered quest for "change"? Is Huckabee's "Joe Everyman" persona anymore genuine than Hillary Clinton's "Iron Lady" image? And, perhaps most importantly, can the "noble lie" be maintained, in the face of mass information that can be accessed by the gold, silver, and bronze-blooded alike? What does that mean for the future of "citizenship" and the Republic itself?
We live in interesting times, indeed.
