Thoughts on Plato, Democracy, & Managerial Societies from Jason Stanley’s book “How Propaganda Works”.
Let’s start of with a quick refresher - Plato argues AGAINST democracy in The Republic.
Stanley points out that one of Plato’s chief criticisms of democracy is that since it prioritizes freedom or liberty, it will lead to equality - specifically equality between slaves and freemen, and equality between women and men. Reading between the lines, the implication is that the world Plato wants is not one where slaves and women have an equal say in how the “city” is governed - he wants to maintain power for a select few to determine what is best for everyone else. The insidious part is that this gets couched in terms that frame it as a genuine seeking of what is best for all, but we see that in reality it’s really “what is best for us”, and in Plato’s case the “us” is his group of philosopher homies.
Quoting Plato from The Republic on the effects of democracy:
A resident alien or a foreign visitor is made equal to a citizen, and he is their equal…. The utmost freedom for the majority is reached in such a city when bought slaves, both male and female, are no less free than those who bought them, and I almost forgot to mention the extent of the legal equality of men and women and of the freedom in the relations between them. - Plato, The Republic
Plato’s alternate vision he argues for is an Aristocracy where a group of Philosopher “guardians” can decide what is best for everyone in society rather than giving people autonomy. In a literal sense, Plato talks about how a good cobbler needs to keep being a cobbler. You can’t allow them to entertain ideas of being a farmer, or some other occupation, because that doesn’t properly maximize “efficiency” for society. In Plato’s imagining of this philosophers as “lovers of learning and wisdom” are capable of caring first and foremost for the common good. These god-like figures are able to decide what is best and most efficient for everyone rather than actually listening to the will of a people characterized as “not knowing what is best for them”.
If this sounds unsettlingly familiar, I feel you - our own history is full of these arguments used to restrict the freedoms of oppressed or marginalized groups to keep them from having a political voice. Plato is clear that this is not democracy. Even if they truly were maximizing efficiency for everyone and not just for themselves it would not be a democracy. In a democracy (and Plato states this rather clearly) the primary values are freedom and equality. In an idealized form we would all stand on the same footing and would all have the freedom to give input that shapes the policies that govern us. Plato’s aristocracy becomes a managerial culture of sorts, even if he goes to great lengths to say that those in control really want what is best for everyone. In a managerial state, efficiency is the primary value over and above both freedom and equality.
In the US, we don’t have selfless “lovers of learning and wisdom” at the helm, seeking the efficiency of everyone. Instead, especially on this side of the Industrial Revolution, we have efficiency for the managers over and against the managed, those who own the companies and control the resources.
Stanley says this:
As Plato’s discussion assumes, the political culture of a society is determined by what it values. As Plato makes clear in his critique of democracy, in a democratic city, freedom and equality are the primary values. In contrast, one would expect, in a managerial culture, even Plato’s “ideal” one, that hard work would be a central value, and respect would be accorded on the basis of one’s ability to work hard. One would expect, in a managerial culture, that accusations of laziness would be particularly stinging. A democratic culture is different. Efficiency may be a value, but it is not a democratic value. In a democratic culture, someone who is a bad worker, or lazy, still deserves equal respect. Are alleged liberal democracies now exploiting confusion between democratic values and managerial values to advance antidemocratic policies?
I’ll come back to that question later with some of Stanley’s examples. Spoiler alert: all the data indicates that yes, this confusion is used to cloak decidedly antidemocratic policies and agendas that are actively pushed.
I think we all see it.