Political Theory

            Shakespeare develops several representative characters throughout the plays, each depicting a different aspect of the Roman elite. The plays Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, and Antony and Cleopatra take place within a specific period in the history of the Roman Republic, beginning with its foundation, following the culmination of the monarchy, and ending with the emergence of the empire. These characters provide insight into the good life.  Throughout this course, we have often mentioned the good life, but the good life’s definition remains ambiguous. The good life is composed of many characteristics, and can be assessed on an individual level. Typically, one must be honorable, just, and loyal to his or her principles. However, living a good life also involves dying in a good way. Shakespeare’s characters illustrate this assertion; living the good life means ending it well.

            Coriolanus, first known as Caius Marcius,represents a glorious battlefield warrior at the emergence of the Republic. Marcius is arrogant, powerful, and of the Roman upper classes. He fiercely defends his city against Rome’s neighboring enemy, the Volscians, in which his single-handed conquest of the city, Corioles, earns him gifts from the military that he proceeds to return. Once he arrives in Rome, however, they give him the honorable name of Coriolanus and the opportunity to be consul, “know, Rome, that all alone Marcius did fight within Corioles gates, where he hath won (2.1.170)!”For Coriolanus, being made consul is indeed an honor, but it does not fit with the way in which Coriolanus is best suited to serve Rome. In battle, he knew how to act, and what his rightful place was.  For him, the good life is defending the idea of Rome with a sword in his hands, battling the enemies of the Republic.  

Once Coriolanus attempts to become political, he is driven out of his beloved city by fearful tribunes and fickle citizens.   “There’s no more to be said, but he is banished as an enemy to the people and his country (3.3.117-118).”  Even worse, after his banishment, Coriolanus confers with the enemy, and makes a deal with their leader, Tulluis Afuidius. Ultimately, Coriolanus’ mother persuades him not to attack his home, but soon Afuidius and the Volscians murder Coriolanus, amid the cries of the citizens, “tear him to pieces… do it presently! (5.6.121).”

 Coriolanus dies in an enemy city of Rome murdered by those whom he had once plotted with.  His murder represents how far removed Coriolanus came from his passion, fighting for Rome.  Coriolanus’ ability to end his life well was ultimately lost when he abandoned his authentic place in the Roman society, as a general of the troops. He enters politics and ends his chance for the good life. By the time he betrays his city, he has already lost his authentic persona.

Mark Antony behaves in a similar manner. At first, Antony is a faithful warrior of Rome, serving under Julius Caesar. After Caesar’s death by a group of conspirators, Antony devises a plan to both avenge Caesar and gain power for himself, by finagling a deal with Brutus. Alone with Caesar’s stabbed body, Antony laments: “Live a thousand years, I shall not find myself so apt to die; no place will please me so, no mean of death as here by Caesar (3.1.175-178).”  Yet, Antony does not charge the conspirators and die beside his leader, instead he tries his hand at politics. Ultimately, he is successful in ascending to a triumvir of Rome. However, his opportunity for a good life has passed.

            Antony’s loss of the good life continues after he abandons his city to be with Cleopatra in Egypt.  His political ascendance rapidly descends, as he loses to Octavius in battle. Eventually, Antony kills himself once he hears his lover, Cleopatra, has died.  Yet, Antony could not even willingly end his life immediately, as he botches his suicide, “I have done my work ill, friends. O, make an end of what I have begun (4.14.128).”  At the end of Antony’s life, he has abandoned his true self as a warrior and follower of Caesar, and thus his good life. He fails as a ruler, politician, and lover due to his stay from the good life. His terrible and pathetic end clearly reflects his loss of a good life. 

            A final Shakespearean character, Brutus, comes closest to fulfilling his good life to the end, yet still fails.  In Julius Caesar, Brutus serves as a politician who faithfully supports his friend, Caesar, and above all, the Republic. Brutus is tormented from the beginning of the conspiracy to murder Caesar, however, he values the Roman Republic more than anything else, and thus believes the murder will best serve the Republic. Brutus asserts, “My ancestors did from the streets of Rome the Tarquin drive when he was called king… I make thee promise, if the redress will follow, thou receives thy full petition at the hand of Brutus (2.1.56).”

Brutus is not a fierce warrior, but rather he is a crafted politician. To begin with, he uses his political might, rather than his sword to defend the Republic. It is only after Antony wages an attack on the conspirators in defense of the Republic that Brutus realizes his good life has ended. By attempting to save a polis that has already fallen, he effectively initiates its final transition to an empire. When defeat is sure, Brutus, before killing himself, states, “Hold, then, my sword and turn away thy face while I do run upon it. … Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will (5.5.51-56).” Brutus comes closest to ending his life well and has a relatively authentic death, but even he ultimately fails because his goals were unrealistic. His plot may well have been noble, but the people were simply too naïve to realize what he was trying to save them from.

 The release of classified information has long been awaited since the end of the Bush administration, and the descaling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The release of CIA classified documents describing “interrogation” methods outside of the U.S. during this time has come to light today.  A senate committee tasked with the job has made a fraction of the records public: only 524 pages out of 6000.  The results are horrifyingly surprising, even for the Bush administration.   The level of injustice that occurred here is astronomical. Even though the administration was faced with the difficult challenge of 9/11, this did not give them the right to torture individuals with medieval practices. The United States’ justice system requires humane treatment of prisoners.  As their guards, they have absolutely no right to treat another human being like a sub species. The CIA’s sanctions are a stain on the justice system of the United States.  As one of the most modern countries in the world, how can we expect other countries not to carry out war crimes when we are committing them ourselves? 

            Aristotle offers several insights into different forms of government in his works. He stresses the importance of politics in every aspect of man’s life. From the functioning of the household to the building blocks of a city, man remains a political animal. Aristotle discusses various forms of government, including timocracy, monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy, but the most interesting is his discussion of democracy, our form of government. He provides a complex narrative for the benefits and drawbacks of democracy. Democracy itself is by no means the most natural and superior form of government. In fact, democracy is both unstable and vulnerable. Hence, in order to establish a well-functioning democracy, citizens need to be habituated into the democratic process and be taught how to be good democrats.

            Naturally, differences exist in the way the rich, the poor, and the middle class function and survive amongst one another. There is an enormous potential for conflict in the ability of the two extremes, the rich and the poor, to govern as “one class cannot obey…the other knows not how to command (IV.11.20-21).”   These types of rule are dependent on the size of each group, because one is typically larger than the other. A difference in size among the individual groups and their general despise towards each other lead to grievous and precarious results.  For Aristotle, the only remedy is a large middle class, as it “is a class of citizens which is most secure in a state (IV.11. 29-30).” 

The amount of stability the middle class provides is essential for a democracy to function well. Its size is the only way to create stability; it must be large so that neither of the two polarizing sides is dominant.   The rich and poor “mistrust one another” and thus they will not yield to each other  (IV.12.5).  But, the middle class will work with either class. They act as a buffer between the two ends of the spectrum, even though the rich and the poor appear to be more natural. Thus, if the expanse of the middle class is removed, the system will collapse. Aristotle demonstrates a democracy’s high level of vulnerability, and highlights the necessity for a majority of the citizens to be part of the middle class first and foremost, so that their government will not fold. A middle class is so important that it has to be manufactured and a city needs to balance the distribution of power by “ostracizing from the city for a time those who seemed to predominate too much through their wealth… or through any other political influence (III. 13. 21-23).”

However, having a large middle class is not enough to shield a democracy from its natural vulnerability. For a democracy to function its citizens need to be taught how to be democrats.  The education must come early, “there can be no doubt that children should be taught those useful things (Book VIII.2.3-4).”  He is referring to four different types of education that must be controlled by the state: reading and writing, drawing, gymnastics, and music.   Individuals need to contribute to democratic function, and this is accomplished through their newfound education.  “The citizen should be moulded to suit the form of government under which he lives” (VIII.1.2-3). This signifies that subjects of democracy have to be structured in a certain way in order for the democratic system to work. Their livelihood is connected with the success or failure of the democracy as their political participation drives it.  Therefore, their education must be an integral part of the democratic society.

This has been a hot button issue throughout the entire U.S., especially in Nebraska.  The proposed new pipeline would offer a more direct route to Texas and thus to the ports.  Currently, there is a smaller pipeline. However, the Keystone XL pipeline will be much larger, capable of transporting 830,000 barrels of oil a day.  The problem for the American public is two fold. One, we will continue to damage the environment and the delicate ecosystem of the Sand Hills, and two, we will also remain dependent upon fossil fuels for energy instead of turning to renewable resources.  The proposition has clear supporters: Republicans, and opposers: Democrats.  However, with the newly elected U.S. Senate, come January this proposition will no longer simply be a proposition.   

 The Republic itself is inherently concerned with claims of justice. However, much of the work revolves around justice at the city level instead of justice at the individual level. In fact, it is Glaucon’s definition of justice in Book II that allows Socrates to build his analogy of the cities that forms the rest of the Republic. Glaucon advances Thrasymachus’ definition of justice that justice is the advantage of the stronger. As so often in the Platonic dialogues, Socrates refutes it in itself without putting forth his own clear definition of justice. It is in Socrates’ failure to put forth a customary definition of justice, like Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon had done, that the philosopher’s most powerful message regarding justice lies. Justice, like the Form of the Good, is not clearly definable, instead it is process that many are not willing to even begin. 

Glaucon asserts that justice is a form of “drudgery which should be practiced for sake of wages and the reputation that comes from opinion (II. 358a).”  He regards justice as something you do not actually have to achieve in order to be perceived as just in society; thus why would anyone rationally attempt to be just?   As long as you can appear to be just through your excellent reputation, there is no need to truly behave justly. Those who are just are only met with suffering “for loss of being able to avenge oneself (II. 359b).”    Glaucon then declares there is a mean between doing what is considered the best: acting unjustly without paying the penalty, and what is considered the worst: suffering injustice without the ability to avenge yourself (II. 358a-c).

Glaucon tells the tale of Gyges to further illustrate his point.  Gyges was a lowly shepherd who found a magical ring that once worn, would make him invisible.   After he had acquired this ring, he embarked for the palace. Gyges then proceeded to murder the king and sleep with his wife.  Glaucon thus declares that any other ordinary man would behave in the same way, “his is a great proof that no one is willingly just but only when compelled to be so (II.360c).”   With this, he also rationalizes we only behave in a just way when we are watched. When you are held accountable, you must suffer the consequences of your actions.  Consequently, if these consequences are removed, you would behave in any way you see fit to directly benefit yourself.  A modern example would be if you indulged yourself in a luxurious meal and did not have to pay for it though it was your obligation to do so, most people would walk out of the restaurant and not bat an eye at ordering a $500 bottle of wine.  Those waiters and chefs will not be paid, nor will the proprietor of the restaurant.

 However, Glaucon’s definition of justice is too simplistic and it is essentially too easy. To act justly at all times can never painless. Justice is difficult to reach, as other options seem much more tempting. It is a process and cannot be undertaken lightly or without a strong commitment. It is something most people will not follow through with given that there is an easier way. Moreover, this effortless alternative enables the man, in whichever sphere of life, a victory,  “when he enters contests, both private and public, [he] wins and gets the better of his enemies (II.361c).”   It seems you can be unjust and have your cake too.

Superficially, the heroes Achilles, Odysseus and Socrates have relatively little in common. Achilles is the greatest warrior Greece had ever seen. He is singularly amazing in battle. Odysseus is a polytropoi who is able to suffer great hardships, and besides that, is still a great warrior. Contrastingly, Socrates was not renowned in battle. More specifically, he was known for his orderly retreat. But the old Athenian philosopher was unmatched in his commitment to his cause, philosophy, and therefore to justice and truth. In Athens, philosophy was seen as a useless and thus dangerous practice. Nevertheless, Socrates is unmatched in his virtue and his commitment to the cause of philosophy, despite the various hardships associated with his practices.

Athenians perceived philosophy as a threatening practice due to its uselessness. It requires its subjects to think deeply about their lives, which can detract from the responsibilities of the citizen. Instead of thinking and aimlessly philosophizing on the market place, a good citizen should be going to the assembly. Therefore, Socrates’ practices were dangerous from the start.  In the Republic by Plato, Socrates confronts an angry sophist whose reactions to Socrates’ rebuttals to his idea, that injustice can be more profitable than justice due to the advantage of the stronger, reflect how charged Socrates’ environment was. Even though Socrates’ assertions follow a sound argument Thrasymachus does not relent and accuses Socrates: “You are disgusting, Socrates. You take hold of the argument in the way you can work it the most harm (The Republic. I. 338d).”  His anger and resentment represented the feelings many Athenians had towards Socrates.

Socrates continued to question the men of Athens publicly and estranged many. Consequentially, he was put on trial for corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the gods of city. While a good defense would have emphasized Socrates’ innocence or at least tried to diminish the potential consequences by promising future deference, Socrates simply continued to question and estrange his accusers. He does not provide a good defense because that would go against his virtue. For example, the great philosopher defends himself against the charges of impiety by telling the story of Chaerephon and how he questioned the Oracle of Delphi. A mere mortal should not question the oracle, and yet he does so.  This shows that he was either impious or arrogant, clearly not the best to demonstrate his charges of impiety. Even when faced with imminent dangers, Socrates remains committed to speaking the truth and acting justly, as he reiterates: “I am hiding nothing from you either great or small in my speech, nor am I holding anything back. And yet I know rather well that I incur hatred by these very things (The Apology 24a).”  He is vitreous because he sticks to his principles and commits to them on a very deep level, even if it means being convicted and punished.  

When the jury finds Socrates guilty as charged by a narrow margin, he realizes that he could no longer practice philosophy in the unrestricted way he used to.  However,  he could promise to be silenced, but by doing so Socrates would rob himself of the right to examine life from every angle and “the unexamined life is not worth living (The Apology 38a).” Socrates puts forth weak alternative ideas such as imprisonment, fines, and exile, but ends up convincing them to kill him in a second vote.   In choosing to die rather than live in silence he shows his virtue and commitment to philosophy. Socrates poignantly demonstrates his virtuousness by not yielding to the jury and using his sentencing as an example of the necessity of the truth.