Stateless Soul-Making by Anonymous

Abstract

In this essay, I will propose an alternative interpretation to Aristotle’s virtue politics that seeks to redefine ‘citizen’, ‘state’, and ‘community’, as well as their relationship to each other. In Aristotle’s ethical and political works, he writes that in order to live the best and most virtuous life possible the individual must participate actively as a citizen within the political community. He asserts that man is a political animal by nature and we achieve goodness and cultivate our souls by living within a state. Aristotle outlines a close relationship between the individual and the city, so much so, that all values are considered only in what benefits the higher interests of the government. I argue the State is detrimental to the individual and impedes the development of virtuosity through political activity. I will provide the evidence of Socrates’ trial at Athens to exemplify the destructive effects of the pre-eminence of government and law to human character. Further, I will present several texts, grounded in the theories of mutual aid, anarchism, and worker organization to bring clarity to my redefinition of political activity without government interference as the ideal environment for soul-making.

Introduction

Aristotle affirms that all human associations are created as an endeavor to achieve goodness. The state, or political community, is the utmost good that encompasses all other human associations.  If political community is the final or highest good, it follows that a person can only become virtuous by actively participating as a citizen in a state. Aristotle’s definition of state differs from our modern conception. He defines the state as composed of citizens, who by nature, live together to satisfy the needs of living.    Humans are unable to exist independently of the community and are therefore drawn to the political life.  Although Aristotle’s ideal state is one that borders on philosophical anarchism, for he concedes that though it would be best to not be ruled at all, for Aristotle, political life requires an organized government.  This is not dissimilar to the modern conception of the political state- I will refer to this state with the capital ‘S’ –which is a designated nation or territory under one government.  The identity of Aristotle’s ideal State is synonymous to its constitution and government.  Further, Aristotle’s definition of citizen is not limited to a mere populace of voters, as is contemporarily recognized, but of an active ruling democratic body in which all appropriate and able persons must reside within the public sphere.  The duties of a citizen are met by being engaged in a position of public office and by maintaining steadfast dedication to the administration of justice and the well-being of the State.  A citizen is evaluated and given privileges based upon their support of the State. The sacrifice of the individual to the well-being of the State is the crippling flaw of Aristotle’s virtue politics. Aristotle’s great-souled man is one who has developed their soul to the pinnacle of human goodness. A person may become independently virtuous, but in order to be excellent beyond criticism, virtue is dependent on community. The faculties of reason, the most revered quality of human kind, and that which separates men from animals, requires a social setting for development. While this is true and agreeable in and of itself, the communitarian political life that Aristotle demands of citizens begs the question of individual rights. Aristotle’s theory forfeits individual happiness for the interests of the State, restricts people from living a private life, and secures citizens a sentence of mandatory loyalty to a government and law, even if it is unjust.  If the State is the ultimate authority, the human soul has no room or potential for development and ultimate goodness is limited.  In what follows, I will attempt to show that Aristotle’s conception of virtuous soul-making within community requires a stateless society.

The Individual, the State, and the Community

For a community to be good, the people within a community must be good. A community is a body of persons living together collectively in a particular area or society. Human development is a cooperative endeavor and requires a completely autonomous society. If the people composing a society are unfulfilled individually, the entire body of the association will be underdeveloped.  When the State’s livelihood supersedes that of its citizens, those persons living under its higher rule, the individual cannot grow. Realized human potential demands that a certain environment be kept. When flaws in human character are present, the individual is not at fault. All men and women possess latent potential to become healthy in spirit and mature in personality. It is only when social conditions are ill, that human behavior, subject to a corrupt external environment, becomes despoiled in turn. When the State imposes restrictions on human impulse by exercising ultimate control and dictating what behaviors are appropriate within the boundaries of a community, the in-born faculties of true human character are distorted. For this reason, people are unable to engage in positive relations with others. The prominent anarchist and feminist of the 20th century, Emma Goldman, wrote extensive volumes on the injurious effects of the State on the individual. She firmly held that social relations could begin only when individuals had grown to know themselves. True human consciousness required an awakened awareness of one’s desires and a firm and intimate relationship with intellectual reasoning. Goldman writes, “Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded person to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, ruined, and maimed?” (Day, 111). Goldman’s view of human nature was undoubtedly positive and she held that until constricting outside influences, namely the State, were completely removed it would be impossible to fully know human character without perversion through an environment of political lenses. Even the lowly criminal, is a man or woman, whose erroneous offense is merely a response to a negative situation, that twists and distorts the human spirit to act from a nature that is not inherent to human-kind, but merely a reflection of exterior dissoluteness.

Author Janet Day, provides a thorough examination of Emma Goldman’s conception of the individual and their negative relations with the State that brings further clarity to the importance of the fully developed individual to the integrity of a community. In Day’s essay, “Individual in Goldman’s Anarchist Theory”, she outlines Goldman’s definition of individuality. Day writes, “Goldman identifies two types of consciousness: consciousness of self and consciousness of relations with others” (Day, 111). Both of these fundamental components are had unanimously across all human beings. Consciousness of self is that which the individual must strive to recognize, to cultivate their capability to know and be conscious of others. Lamentably, despite belonging innately to all men and women, few can realize these critical elements of their personality under the State. Janet Day quotes Emma Goldman in her work, and writes, “Goldman lays the blame on, “every institution of our day, the family, the State, our moral codes, [which] sees in every strong, beautiful personality a deadly enemy; therefore every effort is made to cramp human emotion and originality of thought in the individual into a strait-jacket from its earliest infancy; or to shape every human being according to one pattern; not into a well –rounded individuality, but into a patient work slave, professional automaton, taxpaying citizen, or righteous moralist” (Day, 116).  The groundwork for the well-being of the State is strict adherence to the ideals of the current social order. As these are prescribed by an entity above the individual, a person will never come to know themselves under its might.

Day continues in her essay by illustrating what Emma Goldman expresses to be the unrealized individual. Referred to as the mass man, these persons are those, who under the rule of the State, have become un-realized individuals, stricken “[with] cowardice, who fail to think independently, and who… [are] fearful of others, which leads to the destruction of human relations and social harmony” (Day, 117). The dignity of these individuals has succumbed to the prescriptions of society, whether economic, social, moral, or otherwise, and they are starved of the exceptionality of their identities. The freedom of the mass man is diminished and their actions are sanctioned. Dependence on and enslavement to these commandments of social order, stifles the individual and thus the entire community becomes stagnated.  How individuals relate with each other is solely reliant on the environment established by the State, which is merely one that ensures the institution is able to prevail and discourages human interaction. Day writes that Emma Goldman’s believes the conditions necessary for realizing human potential are only possible within an anarchist community. Anarchism is a society, without any coercive institutions, in which people voluntarily associate and cooperate for the benefit of the entire populace. Free of the interference of the State, society will no longer exist to enslave man but will exist to benefit him. Day concludes that, “Since anarchism, which is against all forms of law, authority, and coercion, needs people to be strong in mind and spirit so they may live in harmony, and for society to be orderly and peaceful, self-directed individuals are a critical component of its success” (Day, 123). Clearly, for a healthy community to sustain goodness, the individual must first be satisfied in spirit.

Socrates and the State

The premier example of an individual being forfeited for the sake of the State can be seen in two of Plato’s essential works, The Apology and the Crito. To begin with, The Apology is Plato’s account of Socrates’ trial against Athens in which he attempts to defend himself against the charges of corrupting the youth and recognizing gods outside of those approved by the city. He professes that he will speak honestly to the jury and attributes his actions to having been influenced by the Oracle at Delphi. It had been his divine duty to question the wisdom of men. Socrates does not deny that his accusations are unwarranted. He says, “I do not think, men of Athens, that it requires a prolonged defense to prove that I am not guilty of the charges…you know that what I said is true…that I am very unpopular with many people. This will be my undoing, if I am undone. This has destroyed many other good men and will, I think, continue to do so. There is no danger that it will stop at me” (Plato,  26) Socrates might be admired for nobly accepting whatever punishment the jury may order, regardless of his innocence, but he defends his submission to an unjust State to be for the health of the institution and city itself. This is a ridiculous act that serves to sacrifice his individual worth to the higher command of the State, which has been shown to be naught but a construct of moral superiority and control. Socrates does not admonish the jury for their final verdict to convict him of his crimes. He says, “It is not the purpose of a juryman’s office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law, and this he has sworn to do. Clearly, it should be a penalty I deserve…to suffer or to pay because I have deliberately…neglected what occupies most people: wealth, household affairs, the position of general or public orator or the other offices, [and] the political clubs and factions that exist in the city” (Plato, 31-32) Socrates explains that if the law were perhaps different in Athens, the trial would not have persisted for so long and his acts would not have been deemed condemnable.

In the Crito, Socrates’ reasons for submitting to the will of the jury are further outlined. The Crito is a dialogue between Socrates and a friend, Crito, who has come to help him flee from prison. This exchange occurs in the hours before his imminent execution. Socrates argues that to escape from prison would be unjust, regardless of his innocence, as he would be violating the social contract between himself and the city of Athens. He says of the State, “You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your own country” (Plato, 45). Socrates avows that the law is the final word and that to run away would be to violate your responsibilities as a citizen and renounce the authority of the city. He refuses Crito’s offer to evade death and is ultimately executed.

Several authors attempt to refute Socrates’ validations for obedience to the law of an unjust city. The following works of Nathan Hanna and Bai Tongdong well articulate my argument that an individual should not remain dutiful to a bad State, nor is their worth determined by obligatory political duty.  In his essay, Socrates and Superiority, Hanna provides an interpretation of the Crito that demonstrates that Socrates was a proponent of the Superiority thesis. Hanna writes, “The Superiority thesis is the principal support for Socrates’ decision not to escape. Socrates is thinking as follows: much of a state’s power rests upon its perceived legitimacy…, and a state cannot continue to survive without its power. Anything that undermines the appearance of the state’s legitimacy, anything that undermines reverence of the state and the law, injures the state because it undermines the foundations of its power- power the state is entitled to have because of its superiority” (Hanna, 263). Through this argument, it can be inferred that by defying the law, Socrates would be injuring the State by denying its moral authority over its citizens.  For the State to be the ultimate authority, it must be composed of a body of citizens that are submissive to its rule.  In defense of the individual, Socrates might argue that the State is entitled to its power because of an unspoken social contract; citizens may leave the city or must follow state orders. Hanna responds, “[Any] agreement is a product of the state’s superiority and of citizen’s obligations of obedience to the state, not a source of them. Because citizens are inferior to the state they have no say over the terms of the agreement…” If the State is the ultimate moral authority the individual has no potential for development and ultimate human goodness is limited. Further, citizens of the State are unable to exercise political duty by scrutinizing the authority of the city, if they are unable to question its justness. Bai Tongdong argues similarly in his article and deems that the reason Socrates gives for not fleeing the city is contradictory. Tongdong writes, “Socrates himself argued that one should do the things he agrees upon with someone else; to escape means to break the laws of the city (the agreements with the city), and thus in order not to do evil to the city, one has to persuade it…but to render ineffective the judgments of the city would lead to the demise of the city” (Tongdong, 387). Socrates’ claim that the citizen must either fulfill his political obligations to the laws of the city or incite an alternate judgment from the jury, less harm the institution itself, is incongruous if he also believes both outcomes will damage the State.  If citizens are to be just and in turn the city just, the virtue of both must be questioned.  The individual, the citizen, comprises the whole, and the interests of the people cannot be sacrificed without damaging the entire community.

Aristotle famously purports in his work, the Posterior Analytics, a text that focuses on scientific knowledge, that Socrates exemplifies the great-souled man. Author Jacob Howland critiques Aristotle’s verdict in his essay, Aristotle’s Great-Souled Man. He argues that the discussion of greatness of soul in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics is not coherent with the Socratic character. Howland writes, “The great-souled man is characterized by heroic, superhuman, or god-like virtue, which finds its fullest expression in a deed whereby the whole community is saved. From the point of view of the community, such virtue possesses absolute value…” (Howland, 32). Further, Howland explains that under Aristotle’s conception of the great-souled man, or the megalopsuchos, to be great in soul one must not desire honor for honor’s sake but for the greatness of all who might possess virtue. Howland continues, “... [to be great] one must see each virtue in its own terms, and also as a part of the whole of virtue and of our shared, political life” (Howland, 30). If virtues can only be discerned when observed within “the whole of which they are parts”, the political sphere, then Socrates cannot possibly be the megalopsuchos (Howland, 30). Socrates, though depicted in Plato’s dialogues to seek wisdom only for the sake of the good and not personal gain, lived a private life and was not politically active. Additionally, if great-souled men gain honor by benefiting the community, Socrates’ subservience to an unjust State perpetuated further harm to the entirety of Athens by legitimizing its authority to repeatedly damage individuals.

Mutual Aid Theory and Community Building

Human development has undoubtedly been shown to be a cooperative undertaking. Russian born anarchist and sociobiologist, Pëtr Kropotkin, developed a theory of evolution that is based not in egoism, but the belief that human activity is driven by true human cooperation. This theory is known as mutual aid. Kropotkin’s scientific writings and animal research lend to a vision of human development that further strengthens evidence for the intimate nature of community building. Many years spent in exile for his activism in the anarchist/communist movement offered Kropotkin the time necessary to study natural species and his findings back these claims. He argued that a species’ sociability was indispensable to their survival. From his observations Kropotkin wrote, “[it is society that] enable[s] the feeblest insects, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist or protect themselves from the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity, it enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth rate” (Glassman, 396). Author Michael Glassman’s essay, “Mutual Aid Theory and Human Development”, aims to shine more light on Kropotkin’s work and argues for the necessity that the theory resurface in contemporary thought. Glassman explains, “Kropotkin’s definition of sociability is the animal’s need for associating with its like. The animal loves its community for community’s sake; and it is within this community of peers that the animal finds its true ‘joy of life’ (Glassman, 393). Human communities are produced naturally from an inborn need for the expression of sociability. If the community suffers, joy of life will cease.

The greatest threats to a society are natural checks that Kropotkin calls “species hostile.” Glassman writes that Kropotkin’s most important point is that, “…the major threat to organisms are not other organisms but a highly variable ecology” (Glassman, 400). In the natural world, changes in food sources and the expansion or decrease of territories can have a powerful influence on a population. The extraordinary quality that separates men from their animal counterparts is their “ability to cultivate, and maintain, unique, complex social organizations” (Glassman, 398). In turn, it is the higher system of social and organizations that are at risk to become the natural checks that are detrimental to a society. Glassman continues, “Kropotkin saw the development of complex human society as being at odds with ethical and cooperative behavior. The more complex the society, the more complex, the barriers, the more opaque the connections between activity and community” (Glassman, 395). Glassman likens the natural phenomenon of animals that will stampede to their deaths merely to maintain the organization of the herd, to humans who will tolerate the abhorrent acts of infanticide or female genital mutilation merely to maintain the structure of their social organization. Kropotkin’s theory provides a response to the obstacles that face human societies. He affirms that pro-social activities, any action that benefits the livelihood of a society, come from the community itself. Glassman explains, “Individuals…engage in pro-social activity if they feel a member of that community and through membership an obligation to maintain that community” (Glassman, 410). For Kropotkin, this altruism is thus inborn within human-kind to the point that feelings of sociability are synonymous with community building.

Kropotkin’s sociobiological work did not end with the study of animal relations but extended to an applied understanding of relations within primitive tribes. John Slatter contributes to the conversation with his essay, “P.A. Kropotkin on Legality and Ethics”. He explains that Kropotkin’s theory of morality asserts that under-free association in a stateless society, ethical feelings arise in men, producing higher moral sentiments. The argument here is that only in an anarchist society would true moral code be established without obligatory currents and become “merely…relations between individuals” (Slatter, 263). Kropotkin did not believe the intellectual atmosphere needed for the development of free character was unobtainable. In fact, Kropotkin states, that tribal communities, functioning without interference from  the unwarranted economic expenses and social demands of the State, needed only “minimize conflict between individual members of the tribe [by developing] characteristics such as honesty, loyalty, a sense of fairness, a readiness, to share, and inclination to hospitality, and the practice of chastity in sexual relations” (Slatter, 266). The incentives to maintain these feelings are synonymous with the need to maintain the community. It was only in inter-tribal relations that disputes are tense, as the community’s well-being is not at stake and no connection to the other tribe is felt. Political writer and anthropologist Pierre Clastres writes, “For the State to appear there would have to exist a division of societies into antagonistic social classes…” This follows from Kropotkin’s tribal theory in which the State is unnecessary so long as the bonds between and within communities are strong.

Worker Organization

If the virtuous person is one who acts according to what contributes to the overall good, a model for the depiction of such achievement might be seen in the example of a cooperative worker organization.  Maria Homiak argues for this in her essay, “Politics as Soul Making”, and believes that Aristotle’s virtue politics are best explained through such a model.  Friendly feelings arise when we actualize our faculties for human reason.  In a workplace in which better conditions are met for some, but not others, it is not in the interests of the privileged to attend to the plight of the few.  When, however, work is transformed from a focus on the production of the goods for individual profit and salary to one where all members may freely discuss the association, each worker can express their human faculties and become confident in their individuality. Workers now desire the good, the benefits of their work, for everyone, so that happiness and motivation are sustained to continue to increase production rate. Homiak writes, that “feelings of solidarity and camaraderie among members… [and the] workers’ ability to express their human powers in action, coupled with the democratic conditions inside the workers’ association where each member conscientiously and manifestly does his part, can upset competitive feelings by removing the bases for inferiority and superiority” (Homiak, 175). If these egalitarian conditions are extended to a community, as I argue, alienation between members will subside and strengthen the whole of the social relationship. This is not dissimilar to Aristotle’s theory of the political life, one that through shared deliberation the human good can be promoted. The workers now have the ability decide how to bring the good to themselves and others.

Conclusion

According to Aristotle, humans are social and political animals who desire and thrive in the company of other people. People become virtuous and grow intellectually and in spirit through political activity. I have argued that the State, an organized, coercive, body of government, is unnecessary to human societal life. Political activity is, then, best defined as human interaction in a community setting, without exterior authoritative control in the environment, and for the benefit of the entire populace. Citizens are the precious individuals that encompass a community and define its quality. For a society to be good and virtuous, it is critical that the people within a community be given the opportunity to fully develop their human essence, express their individualism, and awaken their innate consciousnesses. In contrast, when the State is the moral authority in a society, everyone suffers. Humans are unable to become virtuous when limited by prescribed social doctrines and mandates. In an environment subject to government authority, the State sets an illusionary bar of ultimate goodness that cannot be surpassed by the mere faculties of its ‘lowly’ citizens. Socrates’ trial at Athens exemplifies the injustice the State can inflict on an individual. When society removes the State, true human character ceases to be distorted by its destructive influence and the entire community thrives.

In this essay, I have offered the theory of anarchism, a free and voluntary society, to demonstrate the ideal environment for human flourishing. The theory of mutual aid, in which individuals benefit from a voluntary association with other individuals, in a community without centralized control, would best reveal the inborn nature of humans to others and relations would flourish. An instinctive trait within animal species is to live within a community to increase the ‘joy of life’ in a way that cannot possibly be achieved individually. Primitive societies, like tribal groups, have shown that life without the dangers of the State is the best possible existence. Further, these demonstrate that when a community works as a cooperative body, the individual develops. This is a cyclic process. Neither the individual, nor, the community can be sacrificed if ultimate goodness and virtue are to be achieved through political activity.  Additionally, I have provided the model of a worker organization as a small scale example to illustrate the benefits of human interaction. I conclude that Aristotle’s political theory remains a critical component to understanding what makes a community most virtuous, and should remain to be considered, but with the State in the equation, his proposition falls short.

Works Cited

Clastres, Pierre. "Society Against the State." Clastres, Pierre. Society against the state: essays in political anthropology. New York: Zone Books, 1987. 189-218. [1]

           

Day, Janet E. "The 'Individual' In Goldman's Anarchist Theory." Pennsylvania State Univ. Pr. (2007): 109-132.

Glassman, Michael. "Mutual aid theory and human development: Sociability as primary." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour (2000): 391-412.

Hanna, Nathan. "Socrates and superiority." Southen Hournal of Philosophy (2007): 391-412.

Homiak, Marcia L. "Politics as soul-making: Aristotle on becoming good." Philosophia: Philosophical Quaterly of Israel (1990): 167-193.

Howland, Jacob. "Aristotle's Great-Souled Man." The Review of Politics (2001): 27-56.

Plato. "Crito." Cooper, John M. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hutchinson , 1997. 37-48 . Print .

Plato. "The Apology." Cooper, John M. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hutchinson , 1997. 17-46.

Slatter, J. "P.A. Kropotkin on Legality and Ethics." Studies in European Thought (1996): 255-276.

Tongdong, Bai. "What to do in an unjust state? On Confucius' and Socrates' Views on Political Duty." Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy (2010): 375-390.