Plato\'s Educational Systems and Divisions of Classes

Plato's Educational Systems And Divisions Of Classes In The Republic

On "Educating Philosopher Kings," the in Republic, trans. Robin Waterfield

(Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 250-276.

Unlike the democratic society of ancient Athens, Plato's philosophical conception of the self and state is based upon divisions of education, politics, and social stratum, rather than unity. Of course, it should be noted that even democratic Athenian conceptions of the larger body politic were divided into Greeks v. Barbarians, Women v. Slaves, and that not all individuals received an equal education from tutors and public schools. However, the division of the self within the human person and the importance of categorization are reflected in Plato's discussion of the formulation of an ideal society within his Republic to an extent not found even in Athenian society of his day. (250-276)

Plato, it should be noted, wrote from a society where the division in terms of human categorization was paramount to conceptualizing the world from a philosophical point-of-view. The nature of philosophy was establishing division, rather than intellectually conferring a sameness upon all humans. Even the ages of Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc., were of common parlance. Thus in Plato's own rigid ideal of a society, individuals from birth were classed in terms of their utility like gold, silver, iron, and brass. Plato argues that human beings' functionality within the state structure were not unlike these metals. For instance, one would not use gold the material to construct a yolk for oxen, nor use brass for a setting for a diamond engagement ring, correct? (At least, in the latter case, the man in question, if sensible of his likely intended's desires would not!) Thus, why would one expect a peasant to govern? Why educate a peasant like a king, if he or she does not possess the internal attributes of a governor?

The divisions in Plato's society, unlike the stark divisions of feudal Europe, however, are not based in birth or birth order. Rather they are based on the judgment of who is most fit, temperamentally to govern by the rulers of society. Someone who is a good farmer will not necessarily make a good governor. Thus, those who are most philosophically apt should be educated to govern, and those who are best at farming should be taught to farm, and those who are best at fighting should fight and guard the kings as an elite unit (a.k.a. "The Guardian" class) and those who are most skilled at shoeing horses, should well, shoe horses.

In defense of Plato's conception of society, one could state it is an excellent antidote to the 'Peter Principle,' the theory where every individual is promoted to his or position of greatest incompetence. In other words, just because someone is a great teacher doesn't mean he or she will be an able administrator, just as because someone is a wonderful coffeemaker doesn't mean that he or she will make a great manager of Starbucks. The question arises, however -- if this is not a democracy, and individuals have no free choice in determining where they fit in best, or what education they should receive, who decides who will fulfill all of the functions of this ideal society? Plato answers, infamously, the personas of philosopher-kings.

But who chooses these philosopher kings? Do they become a self-administering class, ruling over all of society, and selecting the fittest young men to join their elite ranks, in the form of a self-perpetuating oligarchy? True, one can transcend one's birth and parentage if one shows appropriate qualities of leadership, but only the ruling elite may decide who is thus fit. Plato believes that rulers must, by definition, keep the interests of the state above their own personal, private interests. This is the true definition, he states, of kingship. Perhaps this was born of seeing the ugliness of democracy, where all individuals were essentially fighting amongst themselves, where the most persuasive man of the moment would win, advocating their own self-interests and allowing the majority to decide, or be persuaded, what the mass will of the state should be. However, Plato's idealistic view of the philosopher-king's selfless nature is troubling at best.

In pages 273-74, Plato describes in detail how these philosopher kings will be educated. Rather than being raised by their parents, they will be taken away and educated in the selflessness of the state, instilled with the values of the upper class of intellectual humanity. Julia Annas has stressed that not all of Plato's writings should be taken literally in terms of their mythological structure, rather they attempt to provide insight into certain aspects of what the philosopher thought was a just and human way to behave in a perfect state. However, not even she can defend the apparent incredulity of a troupe of men essentially possessing the souls of young children, and rearing them in absence of their maternal and paternal, native influences.