The two works selected for this paper, Plato’s The Republic, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, initially appear to be worlds away from one another; however, a close examination of the two works reveals far more similarities than differences between the two societies depicted. Plato wrote about the circumstances in ancient Greece, circa 380 BCE, while Rousseau discussed the state of political affairs in eighteenth-century France. While there are a couple of significant differences that will be discussed in the course of this paper, the two societies look remarkably similar. Indeed, eighteenth-century France (as well as the remainder of western Europe) was the heir to democratic principles established by the ancient Greeks. It might be stated that The Social Contract is a continuation and an articulation of some of the ideals set forth in The Republic. Both works depict societies highly stratified along class lines, as well as a preoccupation with the proper maintenance of political order and just rule.
Both The Republic and The Social Contract speak extensively about the just ordering of society, and the ideal manner of political rule. Rousseau wrote about direct democracy, and favored a sovereign who was directly representative of the will of the people under his governance, as he states in Chapter 1 of Book 3: “the Sovereign is to the subject as ten thousand to one, i.e., each member of the state has as his share only a ten-thousandth part of the sovereign authority…the larger the State, the less the Liberty.” It appears that while Rousseau regards the existence of a political class, which he labels the Sovereigns, as inevitable in a civilized society, he is also suspicious of anything that might give the sovereign excessive power. Plato depicts a similarly stratified society with a specialized ruling class, but appears to take a more optimistic view of the nature of those who might take public office, as Socrates asserts: “And for this reason, I said, money and honour have no attraction for them; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governing and so to get the name of hirelings, nor by secretly helping themselves out of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not being ambitious they do not care about honour” (The Republic, Book 1). In both Plato and Rousseau, the reader gets the sense that both writers regard the existence of a separate political class in society to be unavoidable, however there is a strong impression that the actions of this class are always to be under careful scrutiny.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Social Stratification in The Republic and The Social Contract".
Within both The Republic and The Social Contract, we get a glimpse of societies which are not only politically stratified, but are also divided along socio-economic lines. Plato and Rousseau both depict societies that have general economic abundance; there are several mentions of “luxury” in both readings, and there is some preoccupation with the actions of those who might be classified as “wealthy.” Plato betrays a certain admiration of those who have come by their wealth via inheritance, calling them “indifferent” to fiduciary issues, whereas individuals who have come by their wealth via their own effort talk of nothing else, flaunt their new status, and act as though their attainment of riches is indicative of virtue on their part (The Republic, Book 1). Rousseau makes no distinction between those in his society who have inherited their wealth and the nouveaux-riches, yet he portrays wealth of any sort as a corrupting influence, stating “…luxury either comes of riches or makes them necessary; it corrupts at once rich and poor, the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness” (The Social Contract, Book 3, Chapter 4). Both Plato and Rousseau appear to have resigned themselves to the inevitability of class and wealth inequality in their respective societies. However, Plato places those with inherited wealth on a pedestal, whereas Rousseau seems to regard wealth attained by any means with mild moral disgust.
In neither The Republic nor The Social Contract do we see any explicit mention of gender or violence. That may very well simply be due to the nature of the short excerpts assigned; however, the complete lack of mention of women is notable in both. It may very well be the case in both of these readings that “no message is the loudest message of all.” Women do not appear to have been considered full citizens in either ancient Greece or eighteenth-century France. Both Rousseau and Plato were preoccupied with questions of political power within their given societies and of the rights of citizens, but gender was not an issue in either reading. Regardless of whom the authors considered to be full citizens or not, both The Republic and The Social Contract both illustrate affluent societies that grapple with issues pertaining to social hierarchy and just political rule.
