Friday, September 2, 2011

Glaucon and the Mob Mentality in a Platonic State

In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon tells the story of the ring of Gyges, which in an extremely summarized form, says that if there was no the fear of being punished for committing unjust acts, all people would act unjustly, since these acts benefit the individual the most.

Is this view still applicable in today’s society? With the recent riots in London, mob mentality quickly took over the streets with acts including arson, looting, violence, and rioting in general. With people having no fear of retribution for their acts such as random violence and looting, there was nothing to stop them. With no fear of punishment, these actions continued until the regular order of society was returned, and only returned by the mass deployment of

The mob mentality that formed in London happened under relatively normal circumstances in what seemed like a normal society. This begs the question then, that in Plato’s ideal state, how would people react to something like the riots in London, where the cause of the riots is the citizens’ perception of improper ruling and actions performed by the police?

In an ideal Platonic society, how would the citizens react when they believe that even though the right people are in the place they are supposed to be, such as the guardians, but are doing their job poorly or the wrong way? Would mob mentality, such as in London and in Glaucon’s view, take over and the citizens only do what was beneficial for themselves? Or would the better nature of the citizens prevail, and find a way to resolve the issue peacefully?

I believe, that in the Platonic society, the producers, ruled by their appetitive desires, if dissatisfied, would in fact take what they want in acts such as looting if they lose respect for the guardian class, such as the police force, and have no fear of punishment. Plato would say, of course, that this would not happen, since the just society would never operate this way, with each citizen doing his job best for the good of the society. This is not possible, however, since humans have flaws and are bound to make mistake or let their alternative desires take the place of those of the society every now and then.

In the London riots, however, there was also a great sense of vigilantism, whereas the citizens not involved in the rioting did what they could physically to stop the rioters and their actions. In the Platonic society, how would vigilantism occur, if it did at all? Would the citizens, recognizing the need for actions to stop the rioters and looters, realize that perhaps their society now requires them to change classes, and go from a producer to a guardian, and is this even possible?

If something went wrong in Plato’s ideal society, and people had no fear of punishment for unjust acts, would Glaucon’s mob mentality and self-interested actions occur, or would Plato’s just citizens recognize the need of their society and perhaps change classes for the time being until it was returned to an ideal state?

1 comment:

  1. In your discussion of the London riots, you suggested that the rioting occurred because of the perceived lack of consequences. While this may be a component of allowing oneself to riot, I think we also must consider the psychological phenomenon known as the "diffusion of responsibility."

    Diffusion of responsibility occurs when several people in the same situation commit similar acts. Because multiple people are committing the same potentially immoral act, one feels less personally responsible for his own actions, and as a result may feel little to no guilt. Thus, the riots may have resulted not only from the external motivation of the perception of being able to act without punishment, but also from the internal motivation of acting immorally without having to experience guilt.

    In your post you also asked how citizens in Plato's society would act in a riot situation. While somewhat of an escapist answer, I think that it would be highly unlikely for anything like the London riots to occur in Plato's Republic--but not because the society is "perfect."

    Instead, it is the extreme focus on the self in Plato's society that would keep riots from happening. Individuals have little concern for who is a leader (or any other societal role for that matter) because they are in the role best suited to them, and know that those who lead are best suited to be leaders. Instead of worrying about other's positions in society, they focus on doing the best at their own role. The London riots are often blamed on the lower class' perception of inequalities in social status, political power, and wealth. In Plato's Republic, individuals are so focused on themselves that there is no comparison between societal roles, and thus no perceived inequalities or "keeping up with Joneses," and therefore would not have the motivation the Londoners did to riot.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.