In my post about sex in the Republic, I argued that we shouldn't expect to be able to implement the kind of sexual regime Plato describes [an arrangement that was already long obsolete by classical times!] so long as we still own property. But what about the rest of classical political thought -- the parts that the ancients themselves agreed with? While no doubt the ideas may be useful as a framework or a reference point, could we plausibly try to build a society -- a regime -- on classical ideals? And if not, why not?
A famous argument that it is no longer possible to frame a regime along classical lines is given in Stephen Holmes's 1979 article "Aristippus In and Out of Athens." Holmes argues that the classical model of political life is no longer possible because times have changed. Specifically, Holmes does not deny the point from which classical thinkers started -- viz., that human nature requires sociability, ... social contact with others, ... friends. But he makes the point that in classical times, the only way to get this social contact was as a member of the civic network in a polis, as an engaged citizen. The only path to gratifying one's social needs was politics. In modern society, by contrast, most of us find ourselves to be part of many different social networks, networks that overlap and interlock but do not simply coincide. We are members of our families, but we are also employees at our jobs, worshippers at our churches, coaches at Little League, volunteers for local charities and in community theater, and so on. Some of the people we know from one network might also show up in another one, but many won't. And this complexity of interlocking but independent networks gives us a kind of freedom that was unimaginable to ancient thinkers who had never experienced anything like it. Any attempt to implement classical political ideals would mean merging all these networks into the political network, or in other words politicizing all of life the way totalitarian states do. But this is horrible -- nobody wants to live like that! Therefore the modern application of classical political ideals is impossible.
It's an ingenious argument, and it was a career-maker. (Full disclosure: I took one class from Holmes many years later, and it was halfway through the term before I visited his office hours to ask, "Are you the same Stephen Holmes who wrote ...?" He rolled his eyes and then chuckled, admitting that yes he was and adding that whenever he met a total stranger that was usually the first question asked.) But notice that strictly speaking Holmes doesn't prove that it is impossible to apply classical forms to modern polities ... just that it would be very unpleasant or unattractive. Anyone committed to dragging out the argument could easily reply, "That's just because we've been conditioned by growing up in the modern world to prefer the kinds of pleasures we find here. If we had been trained from birth to value other things instead, we might prefer the classical regime after all." So the question naturally becomes, Is there any argument that can settle the contest between ancient and modern political forms other than an argument that proceeds from an acceptance of modern values? Or does it all just depend on whatever you like?
To get a grip on this question we need a little better idea of what exactly is entailed by classical political ideals. Happily we can find a crisp list of four essential points articulated by Bertrand de Jouvenel in chapter 8 of his Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good. (You can also find the book here. For a good overview of Jouvenel's life and thought generally, see also this article here.) Jouvenel makes it clear that the following criteria were absolutely essential to any good state, in the classical perspective:
- It must be small. In the Laws, Plato proposed a maximum size for his ideal city of 5040 families.
- It must be completely homogeneous: racially, culturally, linguistically ... the works.
- It must prohibit the importation of any beliefs or customs or ideas from outside. That more or less prohibits immigration of any kind, or even much in the way of newspapers. (Television or the Internet would be straight out.)
- It must not change. Innovation is death.
In the short run, and in total isolation, probably Yes. But in the long run No. And the real reason has nothing to do with "values". The simple fact is that modern societies -- large, diverse, innovative societies -- are stronger than ancient ones. In any contest, a big army has the advantage over a small army (other things being equal). To be sure, other things aren't always equal. David had the advantage over Goliath because he had superior technology. But then, the innovative army will have better technology than the non-innovative one. The diverse army can pick up new recruits anywhere -- this is one of the features of empires throughout history -- while the homogeneous army (like that of the Spartans) is limited to one population and one alone. And a culture that is open to immigrants is also open to planting itself everywhere: you can buy a Big Mac on Red Square, and only two countries in the world officially do not import Coca Cola. (Those two countries are Cuba and North Korea, and there are rumors suggesting we not be too sure about North Korea.) There is no power in classical civilization that can stand up to this.
This says nothing about the respective levels of cultivation, to be sure. I don't mean to compare the art of Praxiteles to the Cartoon Network. But in terms of sheer strength -- in the first instance, military strength; and in the second, cultural dominance -- modern societies are vastly more powerful than ancient ones. Set up a modern state and an ancient one side by side, and the first will conquer the second as soon as it wants to. In that sense -- if in no other -- ancient political ideals are no longer realizable.
