Does Plato and Aristotle Marginalize Women?
Plato
in his Republic and Aristotle in his politics sometimes have conflicting views
considering what the position of women and slaves should be in society. This
essay will look at what Plato’s and Aristotle’s views are on this subject
in these particular works and whether they marginalize women and slaves and how
they bring their particular views across.
Plato
is surprisingly feministic in the Republic. He describes a city wherein both
men and women are given equal opportunity to partake in the city’s activities.
They even are allowed to take part in politics and even war. His argument for
this is that the difference between women and men is purely biological and that
women are not intellectually inferior. To introduce his argument he uses the analogy
of the watchdog. He says that people do not prefer male guard dogs over female
guard dogs because both sexes are equally good at performing their duties and
that it therefore does not make sense to allocate certain tasks to men and
others to women.
Despite his exceptional on women, there are still some who criticize him for marginalizing women. Julia Annas, for example in her article “Plato’s Republic and Feminism” accuses Plato of not being a true feminist: “His arguments are unacceptable to a feminist” She argues that Plato wants to give women rights for practical reasons rather than ethical and that because of this he still is marginalizing women. Harry Lesser in a counterargument stated:
“Plato did believe in the superiority of men over women, and his argument for sexual equality is based on the belief that it is in the interests of the community. Nevertheless, what he says can still be used to knock down any attempt to build a case for sexual, class, or racial discrimination.”
The fact of the matter is that women
receive equal rights to men in Plato’s Republic regardless of the reason and
Plato’s arguments are quite persuasive regardless of his motives behind them,
but to look at whether or not Plato does marginalize women one must look at how
his theoretical city would work. He talks about a city wherein no one owns
anything. Even basic privacy is lost. He also says that everyone in this city
should mind their own busyness and only do the specific task that is assigned
to them and that they should accept the decisions the rulers make without
question. Furthermore, he also says that the rulers themselves should live
under the same conditions. The idea is that everything in this city must be
done for the good of the state and not of the individual. Would a society that
worked this way not marginalize everyone? For if everything is done for the
good of the state the individual is forgotten. They don’t even have the right
to privacy. Although people in this society do have the right to the occupation
(which is, of course, something women did not have in ancient Greek
society), in a society like this it is more of an obligation than a right
seeing as all your earnings go to the state.
Plato
does not say much about slaves in his Republic. He however asks the question of
whether or not it is right for one Greek city to enslave another. He came to
the conclusion that it is not right for one Greek city to enslave another and
that they should rather enslave barbarians than Greeks: “which seems just, that Greeks cities enslave Greeks… therefore, that
they not themselves possess a Greek as a slave, and give the same advice to
other Greeks… in that way they would be more inclined to turn to the barbarians
and keep off one another.”[1]
This means that he does not have a problem with slavery as long as the slaves
are not Greek. Plato also says that the citizens of the theoretical city should
prefer death over slavery. Meaning that he sees it as something negative.
Because Plato does not really say what the position of slaves would be in his city
one might assume that it would be the same as in any other city, seeing as if
he wanted to make changes to the position of slaves he surely would have
mentioned it. Slaves in this city, as in any other city, would therefore be
marginalized.
Both
women and slaves are marginalized in Aristotle’s Politics. Aristotle believes
that society should be hierarchical and that citizenship and the right to take part
in politics should be limited. He is opposed to Plato’s idea that a state could
exist wherein everyone are equal. “Of
household management, we have seen that there are three parts – one is the rule
of a master over his slaves… and another of a father and a third of a husband.”[2]
He believes that not only a necessary thing, but also a good thing and he
places women and slaves firmly at the bottom of this hierarchy: “Someone cannot do noble deeds if he is not
as superior as a husband is to his wife, a father to his children, or a master
to his slaves.”[3]
Aristotle
makes an argument in favor of slavery and he gives three reasons why he
believes that slavery is, in fact, a good thing. He describes slaves as being
nothing more than tools to be used by their masters: “A slave is a living possession, and property a number of such
instruments, and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence
over all other instruments.”[4]
In this, his basic argument is that slaves are a means to an end, but he takes
this argument a little further by stating “For if instruments could accomplish
its work on its own, obeying or anticipating the will the will of others… chief
workmen would not want servants nor masters slaves.”[5]
In this, he says not only that slaves are a means to an end, but that it is the
only means to achieving that end. Meaning that society needs slaves in order to
function properly and that slavery therefore is justifiable. Martin Harvey says:
“slavery played an essential role in
the ancient economy.” Thus, meaning that it would have been difficult for
someone like Aristotle to imagine that a city polis could work effectively without slaves. He
however does seem to believe that if an alternative to slavery could be found there would be no more slaves.
He
also believes that there is something such as an unnatural slave and that there
are people who are made slaves who should not be made slaves. He says that
slaves who are made slaves by law are unnatural slaves (meaning slaves taken
in war). He says that in this form of slavery, one man is another man’s slave
because of his brute strength and violence and that this is not what slavery
should be based on violence and brutality.
This
brings me to the other point he makes. Plato says that slavery is beneficial
for the slaves themselves. He claims that slaves benefit from the master’s
guidance. He believes that there should be a good relationship between a master
and his slave. It becomes apparent that Aristotle does not want the
relationship between a master and his slave to be one of violence, but rather
of guidance and he does seem to think that a slave could benefit from this sort
of relationship. Although he does seem to stand for better treatment of slaves
he still does not give them the opportunity to make any decisions for
themselves and therefore they still are marginalised.
Aristotle
not only believes that there is something such as a natural slave, but also
that women are naturally inferior to men and that the man is the natural ruler
of the household. Aristotle does not say much about women in his Politics, but
what he does say does place them on the margins of society. He criticizes
Plato’s view that both sexes could do the same job. He also criticizes Plato’s
suggestion that the institution of the household could be abolished and that
all children could be held in common. He says that different sexes should hold
different tasks. He talks about the women looking after the household while the
men go out and work the field. His argument essentially is that everyone should
have their specific role within a household for the household to function
effectively and that the woman’s natural role is as a subordinate to the man
who is the head of the household. He rejects Plato’s argument concerning the
watchdog, arguing that animals do not have to maintain a household.
At
one point Aristotle almost seems to reconsider what he has said. He asks: ”A question may indeed be raised, whether
there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond and higher than merely
instrumental qualities… it would be absurd to say that they have no virtue”[6].
This statement seems to contradict the statement that slaves are nothing, but
tools to be used by their masters, which forms the basis of his first arguments
in favor of slavery. He then takes this further by saying: “A similar question may be raised about women
and children, whether they have virtue… So in general we may ask about the
natural ruler, and the natural subject, whether they have the same or different
virtues.”[7]
At this point, Aristotle almost seems to be tearing his entire argument apart. He
acknowledges the fact that slaves and women do possess virtues and he almost
seems to disqualify the idea of natural inferiority, but he soon turns the
whole argument around again. He says that virtue is present in all humans, but
that it is present in different degrees and that they are shown in different
ways. He for example says: “The courage
of a man is shown in command, of a woman in obedience.”[8]
This once more brings Aristotle back to the argument that men are superior to
women. In this way, Aristotle achieves two things. He gives yet another argument
of why the inferiority of slaves and women is justifiable and he snuffs out any
counterargument that could present itself concerning the virtues of slaves and
women.
Aristotle
defiantly marginalizes both women and slaves in his Politics. They are
inferior to freeborn men both in the household and in the city-state as a
whole. The man is head of the household and the state is driven by freeborn
men. Whether Plato marginalizes women and slaves is a much more difficult
question to answer and therefore much more open to debate. One interpretation is
that women do have all the same rights men have in this city, but due to the
circumstances Plato places on this city’s citizens it could be argued that not
only women but everyone is marginalized. It is even harder to guess what
Plato’s views on slavery were in the Republic. The best course of action could therefore
be, to assume that slaves would have lived under the same conditions as they
would have in any other Greek city-state. The reasons both Plato and Aristotle
give to validate their views are practical reasons instead of ethical
reasons and they have received much criticism because of it. Both Aristotle and
Plato present their arguments very well even though they are not likely to persuade anyone
today.
References
Lesser.
H, 1979 “Plato’s Feminism.” Philosophy 54:
113-117
Harvey. M, 2001 “Deliberation and Natural Slavery.” Social
Theory and Practice 27: 41-64
Annas.
J, 1976 “Plato’s Republic and Feminism.” Philosophy
51: 307-321
Image taken form Thought Leader: https://thoughtleader.co.za/genesis-and-platos-aristophanes-in-the-symposium/
.jpeg)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete