—PLATO, The Statesman (lines 294a10–c8)
Obergruppenführer John Smith’s face was contorted in agony, as if his father’s heart was torn out. The doctor told him that his son had a disease that, under Nazi law, required his son’s death.
This scene is loaded with philosophically interesting material, including the nature of statecraft. Why does the state control who lives and who dies? Why is the law blind to this father’s love of child? Presumably, the Reich wants the best possible society for those it deems worthy. Who got to say that this sort of law was best for citizens? The Reich as well as Japan in The Man in the High Castle are often called fascist regimes. Undoubtedly. However, the structure of these governments was discussed favorably by Plato 2,400 years ago. Let’s call the template “Plato’s Republic” after the name of his book, The Republic.
I’m not saying that Plato would have looked favorably on the Reich or Japan. He has very strong views on bad laws and dictatorships. All I’m claiming is that the governmental shape of the Reich and Japan are very close to Plato’s Republic.
The Art of Statecraft according to Plato
According to Plato, the art of political expertise has at least two, but possibly three components. At any rate, political expertise requires:
1.an excellent knowledge of human psychology.
This means, in part, knowledge about different personalities, and general knowledge of human behavior, as well as knowledge of the capabilities of citizens. And it also means being able to figure out the kind of person you’re dealing with in day-to-day business.
2.The political expert must also be able to manage the day-to-day affairs of the state.
This includes not only doing government-related stuff, but also controlling the day-to-day shenanigans and goings on of citizens, including employment, education, and relationships.
3.Finally, the political expert must be really good at legislation.
At one point, Plato did not think this third component was properly part of the art of statecraft because law cannot attend to particular circumstances. Later, he seemed to think it was part of the art of statecraft.
The political expert should use her superior knowledge of human psychology, her managerial expertise, and her legislative expertise for the good of the state and the subjects therein, mixing and blending together the various sorts of personalities and lifestyles therein. How?
Plato’s “Republic”
You might be thinking: “Hey, that sounds wicked awesome! If only more political leaders were like that, things would be better.” Ha, ha. You say that, but things are about to get cra-cra.
Because of the political leader’s expertise in human psychology, management, and legislation, the political leader should control all the aspects of day-to-day life in the state. So unlike an actual republic where supreme power rests with the people, supreme power rests with the political expert in Plato’s ideal “republic.”
What should the leader control? Well, according to her superior psychological knowledge, she can determine what kinds of people there are in her realm. Due to her management expertise, she knows not only what the state needs (such as farmers, blacksmiths, and lumberjacks), but how and when these tasks should be performed. Combined with her psychological knowledge, she also determines who does what jobs.
You read that right. She determines who does what jobs. But this is just the beginning. According to Plato, the political expert should control breeding and who breeds with whom. The aim here is to control the number of personality types suited for particular tasks. Marriage is also done away with and breeding simply occurs how and when the state directs it. Children are not raised by parents, but by the State. Also, the political expert controls education and music in order to inculcate in the population the right sort of morals and right attitudes towards life. This is just some of what the political expert would control. The perfect states controls their citizens from the cradle to the grave: where they work, what their job is, whom they reproduce with, the timing of reproduction, and the sort of education received and even music listened to.
Her expertise in legislation enforces how and when the activities of the land are done, and ensures people are all doing what they’re supposed to be doing. The consequence, of course, for breaking laws is a punishment of some sort, presumably also determined by the political expert. Suppose I am ordered to breed with someone. If I refuse, I am punished.
What justifies this? In part, it’s the superior knowledge of the political expert. They know what’s best for the state and for its citizens. It is very important to remember that when the political expert is doing his job correctly, there is a harmony and balance in the realm.
Of Emperors, Führers, and Laws
There are a number of parallels between Plato’s ideal republic and the main governments in The Man in the High Castle.
Japan is governed by an Emperor. The Emperor conducts the affairs in his realm in accordance with his own judgment, probably also taking into account reports from his advisors about the state of affairs in the Empire. He has enacted numerous laws, especially laws about anything that threatens, or is perceived to threaten the state. And the laws around this are very harsh.
Recall the incident in which Frank Frink was arrested, imprisoned, and beaten by the Kempeitai. This treatment was justified by law because Frink was accused of having information about something deemed dangerous or important to the Japanese government. Recall also that Frink is Jewish. To further press him, Inspector Kido authorizes Frink’s sister, Lauren Crothers and her children to sit in an actual gas chamber. Kido threatens to kill them if Frank does not co-operate. And indeed they die at Kido’s command. The will of the state is absolute, and they have the means to make laws and policies . . . and enforce them.
The Reich is similar. All the power rests with the state, headed up by the Führer. He has constructed a society where everyone has a place, and there is a place for everyone (provided, of course, you are white and free of debilitating diseases, or other conditions the state doesn’t recognize). Laws and policies are devised and enforced to ensure that the aims of the State are achieved. One of the horrible policies supported and enforced by the law is of course the wholesale slaughter of an unfathomable number of human beings.
Both Japan and the Reich are examples of forms of government where the power rests in the hands of the political leaders. They are supposed to conduct the day-to-day affairs of citizens, determine how and when jobs are performed, and in general know how to use their knowledge of psychology to integrate the various sorts of persons under their rule. This is the key point of comparison I wanted to draw from Plato’s Republic. It is not to the point that Japan and the Reich show, in several areas, that they do not have a superior knowledge of management, psychology, and legislation. What is to the point is that we have two forms of government that, in several important ways, look like Plato’s Republic.
In some regards, Plato’s favored government seems even more “extreme” than Japan or the Reich. For example, people in Japan and the Reich can have families and raise their own children. Presumably they can marry who they want to as well. Undoubtedly, there are class restrictions or some such that make some matches “suitable” or “unsuitable.” But Plato’s Republic abolishes family completely. Just how far should the state reach into the lives of citizens?
Law clearly plays an important and even critical role in enforcing the will of the state. And this is something Plato wrestled with and changed his views on. Let’s take a look.
Plato and the Legislative Skill
Plato held two very different views on the art of legislation and the political leader. In The Statesman, Plato thought that the art of legislation did not belong to the art of statecraft; that is, the statesman was an expert in human psychology and management only. In fact, he thought law was contrary to the aims of the political expert! Why? The law was simply too general. Law could never account for all the particular circ
umstances that arise in human affairs. Further, the law purports to hold absolute authority and does not countenance actions contrary to its demand, nor does it allow for thinking about whether or not it’s just. This is where the quote I opened with comes in. The law behaves like a self-willed and ignorant person always demanding his own way. And it cannot do otherwise. Because of law’s ineffectiveness in particular circumstance, Plato thought that political leaders should not be bound by law at all because it would hinder their ability to exercise their political craft. Law, by its nature, is insensitive to particular circumstances, wherever they occur.
Obergruppenführer Smith finds out his son must die according to the law. No exceptions. No consideration of particular circumstances. No appeals. But consider Smith’s position in the scheme of things. He’s a very high-ranking Nazi with ties to the Führer himself. He knows a lot about the inner workings of the government and is therefore potentially dangerous. You would think it would behoove the Führer to ensure his most trusted advisors remained happy, so he might make an exception to the law in order to preserve the stability of his government. Or can’t he do that? Is the Führer also bound under this law?
For a less dark example, suppose the law required x number of farmers, x number of engineers, and so forth. But suppose a terrible drought hit, killing all the crops. Presumably, the sensible thing to do would be to increase the number of both engineers and farmers to attempt to find a solution, possibly in irrigation. To do this, the law would have to be changed because there is nothing in the law that allows for a different course of action.
You might think this is weird. You might think: “Yeah! Change the laws when they become outdated, or when it suits to keep the peace. What’s wrong with that? What’s all this business about law’s being like a belligerent person?” But the point is that when a law is in place, its “will” is absolute and allows no consideration of particular circumstance. One example is of course the required death of citizens with certain congenital illnesses in the Reich. No particular circumstances are considered. The tears of countless mothers and fathers, including Obergruppenführer Smith, are effectively invisible to law. And laws can only be changed by the political experts who deem it necessary. If the Führer does not count the agony of mothers and fathers as a circumstance that requires a change, the law remains in effect.
Laws cannot have built-in wiggle room. Laws, unless changed by the political expert, must demand that citizens obey . . . even if they know better. The citizen cannot recognize the outdatedness of the law and go against it. For example, laws are of the form: murder is illegal. And murder is defined in a particular way. The law does not say, in most cases murder is illegal. Wait, you might say, it does! Crimes of passion are a thing. Yes, but by definition they are supposed to fall outside the category of murder. Laws cannot be of the form “in most cases, this or that is wrong” because it leaves judgment up to private citizens as to what the particular circumstances demands. So the murder law can’t be of the form: murder is illegal, unless you, the citizen, consider it necessary in a particular circumstance. For this is the realm of the political experts only. Only the political expert should act as arbiter among particular circumstances.
By the time Plato wrote The Republic, he had changed his mind about legislative expertise. He not only thought that it belonged to the skill set required by the political expert, but also that it was the most important part of political expertise, even more than expertise in human psychology or managerial skills. It went from no place to first place! Why? How? Plato perhaps thought that well-constructed laws, based on the political expert’s psychological and managerial expertise, could keep things running smoothly, and help to weave together the various personalities.
The key point is this. Whatever Plato thought about the legislative skill—whether it belongs to the political skill or not—the law still behaves in the same way. That is, citizens do not get wiggle room to decide when particular circumstances merit ignoring or breaking a law. Moreover, the political leader must be above the law in order to correctly attend to particular circumstances. Whatever the law prescribes must be adhered to on pain of punishment . . . even for such a high-ranking individual as Obergruppenführer Smith.
Notice, the Führer has the power to think about Obergruppenführer Smith’s case and make an exception if the particular circumstances merit this. But, of course, this would involve letting the Führer know and awaiting his decision, which could turn out to be no.
Plato’s Republic and Fascism
What’s the difference between Plato’s Republic and Germany and Japan? Not much, really. Structurally, they are very similar. All three have leaders who control the law and are above the law. All three are aimed at weaving the various personalities together through psychological, managerial, and legislative expertise. All three aim at controlling the lives of citizens from the cradle to grave. Though, in some ways, Plato’s Republic is even more extreme (abolishing marriages and civil unions, and raising children apart from families).
“Wait!,” you might protest, “There is a significant difference between Plato’s Republic and Japan and the Reich! Plato’s Republic, although extreme, insists that the ideal government should have political experts aimed at the good of society. But the Reich and Japan seem to have corrupt leaders and policies.”
That’s true as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough. Whether or not the leaders and policies are corrupt or good, the structure is the same. The government has a monopoly on legislation and management. Let’s put this point another way. Traditionally, fascism is hallmarked by a governmental leader and system having complete power over law and infrastructure. It also has strong connotations of that governmental leader and system employing unjust, often racist, and frequently nationalistic laws and policies. Presumably, Plato’s idealized republic would not have evil or bad policies by definition. But take that away, and what remains? A governmental leader and system that holds all the power. That is the issue. Should such a governmental form be accepted or not?
What is the argument for having such a governmental form? Well, we could compare the political expert to a doctor. The doctor, because of his superior knowledge in health, can tell me that I need to eat less fatty food and exercise more. He knows what’s best for me, even better than I do. Similarly, if we got the properly trained political expert in power, she can control education, infrastructure, and daily affairs much better than any of the citizens due to superior knowledge. She knows what’s best for me and my life, even more than I do.
But the ideals of democratic republics stand against this.
Plato’s Republic versus Democratic Republics
The ideals behind democratic republics are different. One key idea is that people should be free to determine the course of their own lives. But, just saying this doesn’t address the argument from the last section.
What a champion of democratic republics might say to it is this. The comparison between a doctor and political expert fails. In order for it to work, citizens would have to be completely, or close enough to completely, ignorant of all things psychological and managerial . . . like I am about doctor stuff. Really, though, most people do have an idea about psychology and management: they have relationships, friendships, are part of a community. To get along in it they have to know something about persons. Moreover, people can run households and perform jobs. There is competency in managerial stuff as well. The comparison, then, might be between a fully-trained doctor, and a student in medical school. But if this is right, the student in medical school should be afforded a say in matters because they are not completely ignorant of the craft of doctoring. Similarly, people should have a say in government and running their own lives. Even if they are not total experts like the political expert, they do have enough relevant expertise to be afforded a say in their affairs.
The Man in the High Castle, both the TV show, and especially the novel, have this as a subplot. What many of the charac
ters yearn for is the freedom to breathe, to run their lives without interference from the government. For example, in the show, Trudy Walker felt so stifled by the government, she was willing to risk her life for the promise of something better (in this case, the stuff surrounding those newsreel films). Indeed, the grasshopper lies heavy, if we reinterpret “grasshopper” to mean the government and assume it lies heavily on its subjects, pinning them and their aspirations down. I know, I know. I repurposed this.
Anyway, who’s right? Plato, or the democratic republicists? There are, of course, more arguments on both sides, but this should get us thinking.
Final Thoughts
These days, so many people are clamoring for better laws, more laws, important legislation, enforcing key policies. Let’s linger on this a moment. Laws are binding and insensitive to particular circumstance, by their nature. And if they allow for wiggle room, they are not really laws because they allow the thinking citizen to follow it or break it according to circumstance. We need to be very careful where we apply law, therefore.
Laws which dictate how citizens are to live, what they can and cannot say, or watch, or wear, are laws that restrict personal liberties. But it is not just laws about personal liberties that require reflection.
The more we want the government to manage infrastructure, markets, and the more we desire better laws to goad us on, the closer we get to Plato’s republic. Where is the line drawn? Sure, we like the idea of state-controlled education, perhaps. But why not state-controlled breeding?
The whole reason we want a government-controlled education system is to ensure a certain standard, right? We don’t want kooks in education. But, you know, a lot of people get into toxic relationships, and raise children badly. Shouldn’t there be state-controlled standards for relationships and breeding? You see the point. Where do we draw the line between the political expert and the non-political expert?
The Man in the High Castle and Philosophy Page 7