This is another dialogue starring the mysterious Visitor of “Sophist” fame. Now, his interlocutor is Socrates’ namesake, the so-called Young Socrates. After bantering around for a bit, they get to the crux of the matter. The Visitor suggests, “that kingly rule was one of the sorts of expert knowledge…. It seems that of constitutions too the one that is correct in comparison with the rest, and alone a constitution, is the one in which the rulers would be found truly possessing expert knowledge, and not merely seeming to do so…. And whether they purge the city for its benefit by putting some people to death or else by exiling them, or whether again they make it smaller by sending out colonies somewhere like swarms of bees, or build it up by introducing people from somewhere outside and making them citizens—so long as they act to preserve it on the basis of expert knowledge and what is just, making it better than it was so far as they can, this is the constitution which alone we must say is correct.” The Visitor seems to be giving utmost leeway to the opinions of experts in ruling the polis. He continues, “It is clear that the art of the legislator belongs to that of the king; but the best thing is not that the laws should prevail, but rather the kingly man who possesses wisdom.” There goes rule of law. It comes down to personal wisdom versus legislation. “Law could never accurately embrace what is best and most just for all at the same time, and so prescribe what is best. For the dissimilarities between human beings and their actions, and the fact that practically nothing in human affairs ever remains stable, prevent any sort of expertise whatsoever from making any simple decision in any sphere that covers all cases and will last for all time.”
The Visitor uses a metaphor to explain the role of the ideal Statesman, “Just as a steersman, always watching out for what is to the benefit of the ship and the sailors, preserves his fellow sailors not by putting things down in writing but offering his expertise as law, so too in the same manner a constitution would be correct, would it not, if it issued from those who are able to rule in this way, offering strength of their expertise as more powerful than the laws?” The Visitor seems to want to let the experts steer the ship of State, as circumstances arise, how they see best, without being constrained by tradition, precedent, and, most certainly, legislation. But who will these expert statesmen be? It is obvious, according to the Visitor, “that a mass of any people whatsoever would never be able to acquire this sort of expert knowledge and so govern a city with intelligence; and that we must look for that one constitution, the correct one, in relation to a small element in the population, few in number, or even a single individual.” The Visitor does worry that false prophets might claim to be experts and claim that mantle to the detriment of the whole State. “If they were to do such a thing without having expert knowledge, they would be undertaking to imitate what is true, but would imitate it altogether badly.” The Visitor next reiterates whom he has in mind as experts. “No large collection of people is capable of acquiring any sort of expertise whatsoever…. Then if some sort of kingly expertise exists, neither the collection of people that consists of the rich, nor all the people together, could ever acquire this expert knowledge of statesmanship.” The Visitor concedes that this is a dangerous proposition as it will attract many false experts. “Then it is in this way that the tyrant has come about, we say, and the king, and oligarchy, and aristocracy, and democracy—because people found themselves unable to put up with the idea of that single individual of ours as monarch, and refused to believe that there would ever come to be anyone who deserved to rule in such a way, so as to be willing and able to rule with virtue and expert knowledge, distributing what is just and right correctly to all. They think that a person in such a position always mutilates, kills and generally maltreats whichever of us he wishes.” Remember, the Visitor is setting out his case for the ideal Statesman, the platonic form, which might never exist in reality, and contrasting it at times, with what actually happens in the polis of reality. To that end, he states, “So then we must also remove those who participate in all these constitutions, except for the one based on knowledge, as being, not statesmen, but experts in faction.” If it is not statesmanship by impartial intelligence, then rule devolves into command by party and faction.
The Visitor next returns to the responsibilities of a proper Statesman. “What is really kingship must not itself perform practical tasks, but control those with the capacity to perform them, because it knows when it is the right time to begin and set in motion the most important things in cities, and when it is the wrong time; and the others must do what has been prescribed for them.” The Visitor goes back to one of his favorite metaphors for the proper occupation of kingship- the weaver, “The one that controls all of these, and the laws, and cares for every aspect of things in the city, weaving everything together in the most correct way—this, embracing its capacity with the appellation belonging to the whole, we would, it seems, most appropriately call statesmanship.” The job of the Statesman is to weave together and balance the various personalities of the best men of the polis to make sure that these men are put in a position to care for the day to day functions of the State. Skill in rhetoric, generalship, and judging of the laws are subordinate to the primacy of statesmanship and, therefore, must be delegated and not necessarily practiced by the king. Achieving balance to set the State in equilibrium is paramount. Neither men of too much courage, nor men of too much moderation must exert undue pull on the levers of State—this balance is the role of the ideal statesman. To that end, the Visitor admonishes, “This is the single and complete task of kingly weaving-together, never to allow moderate dispositions to stand away from the courageous. Rather, by working them closely into each other as if with a shuttle, through sharing of opinions, through honors, dishonor, esteem, and the giving of pledges to one another, it draws together a smooth and ‘fine-woven’ fabric out of them, as the expression is, and always entrusts offices in cities to these in common…. For the dispositions of moderate people when in office are markedly cautious, just and conservative, but they lack bite, and a certain sharp and practical keenness…. And the dispositions of the courageous, in their turn, are inferior to the others in relation to justice and caution, but have an exceptional degree of keenness when it comes to action…. This marks the completion of the fabric which is the product of the art of statesmanship: the weaving together, with regular intertwining, of the dispositions of brave and moderate people—when the expertise belonging to the king brings their life together in agreement and friendship and makes it common between them, completing the most magnificent and best of all fabrics and covering with it all the other inhabitants of cities.”
No comments:
Post a Comment