In Republic III, Socrates discusses how a society can best
educate its citizens toward the goal of human flourishing. He argues for a sort of censorship of religious
texts and poetry, literature and theater, and finally music, all with the end
to develop the best type of human character.
It struck me as remarkable how many of the themes here in the Republic
can be found in the writings of Marx and the present day governance of the
People’s Republic of China.
First, Socrates advocates for a kind of naturalized
religion, one that is ultimately subservient not to revealed truth but to a philosophical
conception of the Good. On face value,
his aims seem noble and good. He wants
to take out any of the religious stories that might foster bad or unwanted character
development in the city’s citizens. But his
encroachment on religious freedom is really in the same spirit as Marx in his
Communist Manifesto. Marx argued that religious
belief was primary in keeping people in a state of oppression, and in order to
flourish, people must rid themselves of this belief.
Second, there is the censorship of the arts: literature,
theater, and music. Socrates stated
purpose is to eliminate those aspects which might lead to licentiousness and
immoral or corrupt behavior. But at what
cost? Socrates seems to set up the
problem so that one must choose between human flourishing and freedom.
As I reflect on this, I wonder if Socrates is right. His concept of imitation, and the passing
down of values from one generation to another, I found particularly intriguing. We imitate
those we look up to, and receive much of our character training at a young age
from the previous generation. If we are
to teach young people how to be good and develop noble character, must we not discriminate
on their behalf in the kind of things
they see, hear, and learn? Should we not
limit what they are exposed to? If I
want a child to appreciate the true value and beauty of sexual pleasure between
a man and a woman (nodding here to Nathan) in the context of love and a
committed lifelong relationship, it seems right that I should censor exposure
to pornography. Maybe this makes me old fashioned. As one looks around at the degradation of
American culture, with kids running around looking like gothic frieks,
listening to wretched and hateful music, and getting educated on sexual
pleasure from books like 50 Shades of Grey, one wants to exclaim “No wonder!” Was Socrates right? Is this is a byproduct of our societies lack
of censorship and control over the direction of our cultural development
through civic education?
As an American, proud and free, my first inclination to
censorship is strongly negative emotional reaction (nodding here to Jared). And I think there is something right about
that reaction. On the other hand, as a
Christian, I recognize the natural inclination of man to wonder away from the Good.
(For those interested, I have in mind Romans 1:21-27. It’s worth a re-read if you haven’t read it
in a while). God himself set up strict
laws for the covenant people of Israel, which included severe limitations on
personal freedoms. So, my question to my
fellow classmates who are more learned in virtue theory than myself: Is there a
kind of mean between freedom and censorship in the context of civic education? If so, how do we find it?
The mean might involve a further exploration of the age of those we are "protecting." I was noticing this time around how many times Socrates makes clear he is talking about the education of children, but that said there is plenty of regulation of the adult population as well.
ReplyDeleteOn the sexual pleasure in marriage question, it is clear from some of the stories Socrates mentions that at least the gods have pleasurable sex within (and outside) the confines of marriage. Given the highly anthropomorphic aspect of Greek religion it seems we could extrapolate backwards from Gods to humans.