Reading Plato’s Republic with new eyes is almost disorienting. Here is a man writing in 380 BCE in a city where women were not allowed to vote, own property, or even leave the house without a male escort. He is methodically and unapologetically arguing that the most capable women ought to get the same education as men. that they ought to practice music, philosophy, and physical combat. that they ought to rule. Perhaps no concept in all of classical political philosophy has consistently surprised readers in the present day.
The context is more important than most people realize. Women were not treated very well in ancient Athens. Excluded from the civic life that characterized male identity, a respectable Athenian woman lived mostly indoors under the control of her father and later her husband. She just had no access to education in any real sense. In light of this, Plato’s proposal in Book V of the Republic was not a reform. It was more akin to a rupture.
His argument was based on a philosophical foundation that was surprisingly sound. Reason, spirit, and appetite are the three parts of the soul, according to Plato. Like men, women have all three. Furthermore, biological sex becomes virtually irrelevant when choosing a leader if the soul is what determines a person’s capacity for moral discipline, courage, and reason. That logic has a subtle elegance, but it also has a certain icy quality. Plato was not making a sentimental case for women’s emancipation. He was calculating the requirements for a just state.
The contradiction that permeates Plato’s writings is what makes this truly bizarre to sit with. He used the term “womanish” to refer to cowardice. He portrays rebirth as a woman in the Timaeus as retribution for leading an immoral life. For decades, academics have struggled with this issue, and there is still no definitive solution. It appears that Plato was a man whose philosophical convictions overrode his cultural instincts; he was able to make a convincing case for gender equality while also using derogatory language that was coded for women. Even now, it’s difficult to ignore how familiar that specific contradiction feels.
His suggestion that the Guardian class raise their children collectively has generated controversy of its own. In a way, Plato was attempting to liberate women from the domestic role that prevented them from participating in public life by removing children from private families and dismantling the conventional household structure. Depending on who you ask, this may or may not be considered progressive or paternalistic. After studying under Plato for almost twenty years, Aristotle rejected almost all of it, concluding that women were not suitable for education or leadership because they were biologically inferior. From the same starting point, the teacher and student came to almost different conclusions.
One gets the impression from reading these arguments nowadays that the true story goes beyond ancient philosophy. It concerns how long truly radical concepts can remain unnoticed. For the majority of Western history, women who could have profited from Plato’s ideas remained outside the classroom door despite the fact that they were recorded, discussed, and translated throughout centuries and civilizations. Perhaps the most sobering detail of all is the discrepancy between a philosopher’s written position and the real world.
