Contrasting Views on Athenian Democracy

In the exploration of ancient Athenian society and its democratic principles, the speeches of Pericles and Socrates present two compelling yet opposing perspectives. Pericles, in his Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, extols the virtues of Athenian democracy, emphasizing its inclusivity and the potential for merit-based public service. On the other hand, Socrates, in Plato’s "Apology," offers a critical examination of these same democratic principles, highlighting their inherent flaws and questioning their efficacy. This essay delves into these contrasting viewpoints, elucidating how each thinker’s perspective informs our understanding of Athenian democracy.

Pericles, in his speech, passionately argues that the greatness of Athenian democracy lies in its people-centered governance. He proclaims that "the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few" (Thucydides 2.37), suggesting that the collective wisdom of the populace ensures just and equitable governance. Pericles further asserts, "there is no exclusiveness in Athenian public life" (Thucydides 2.37), advocating for a society where individuals, regardless of their wealth or social standing, can contribute to public affairs if they demonstrate merit. This inclusivity, according to Pericles, is what empowers Athens to thrive, fostering a sense of participation and responsibility among its citizens. He believes that the diversity of voices and experiences enriches decision-making processes, leading to a more robust and dynamic society.

In stark contrast, Socrates challenges these democratic ideals by drawing an analogy to horse training. He argues that just as it is not the multitude but the skilled trainer who benefits horses, governance should rest in the hands of the knowledgeable few rather than the uninformed many. Socrates contends, "one man is able to do them good, or at least not many" (Plato 24c), emphasizing the importance of expertise over quantity. This critique underscores Socrates' belief that true wisdom and understanding are rare and should be the criteria for political authority. He questions the assumption that ordinary citizens possess the necessary wisdom to make informed decisions on complex public matters, suggesting that democracy’s reliance on the masses may lead to misguided and harmful outcomes.

Further, Socrates critiques the Athenian notion that proficiency in one’s trade equates to political acumen. He observes that many Athenians, skilled in their respective crafts, falsely assume competence in "all sorts of high matters" (Plato 22c9). This misjudgment, according to Socrates, leads to a superficial understanding of governance, overshadowing true wisdom. Conversely, Pericles maintains that even those "engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics" (Thucydides 2.40), reinforcing his belief in the capacity of ordinary citizens to contribute meaningfully to public life. However, Socrates’ argument raises an important question about the nature of expertise and the potential dangers of equating specialized skill with political insight.

Pericles also emphasizes that public service is the highest virtue, viewing those who abstain from public affairs as "useless" (Thucydides 2.40). In his view, the collective commitment to the state surpasses individual virtues, with civic engagement serving as the cornerstone of a successful democracy. This perspective prioritizes societal contributions over personal moral character, suggesting that participation in public life inherently fosters a spirit of reverence and responsibility.

In contrast, Socrates argues that personal virtue is paramount, positing that "the good do their neighbors good, and the evil to them evil" (Plato 24c9). He asserts that a person’s character fundamentally influences their ability to make just decisions, challenging the notion that public service alone suffices for effective governance. Socrates’ emphasis on personal virtue and wisdom suggests that ethical considerations should guide political actions, a view that often conflicts with the pragmatic approach favored by Pericles.

Socrates further condemns Athenians for prioritizing wealth, honor, and reputation over wisdom and the soul’s improvement, critiquing their adherence to human laws over divine commandments. He declares, "I shall obey God rather than humans" (Plato 29d2), prioritizing spiritual over civic obligations. This stance reveals Socrates’ commitment to higher moral principles, contrasting sharply with Pericles' focus on civic duty and public service as the foundation of a successful democracy.

In conclusion, the divergent perspectives of Pericles and Socrates on Athenian democracy offer rich insights into the complexities of governance and civic responsibility. Pericles’ vision of an inclusive and participatory democracy celebrates the collective wisdom and engagement of the populace, highlighting its role in Athens’ ascendancy. Conversely, Socrates’ critique underscores the limitations of such an approach, advocating for a nuanced understanding of expertise, virtue, and the moral obligations of citizens. These contrasting views invite ongoing reflection on the balance between democratic participation and informed leadership, a debate that remains relevant in contemporary discussions of governance and civic life. Through their respective arguments, Pericles and Socrates contribute to a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings and practical challenges of democracy, emphasizing the need for both collective engagement and individual virtue in the pursuit of a just and flourishing society.

Did you like this example?

343

18