Social Status in Plato’s Ideal State: Its Relevance to Nigerian Society
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In any existing human society, irrespective of time and place, there is always politics. Because togetherness calls for orderliness; yet, any ordered or well-organised society implies well-structured society. Every society comprises of different people of different talents and interests some doing one thing and others doing another, some leading, others being led, yet cumulatively making a kind of anatomical whole.
Unfortunately, Nigeria as a society does not appear to be ordered nor well organised. This is, in a way, not because of the lack who does what, but because of the prestige, honour, and status attached to what one possesses or achieved has become more important than the need for better society. That is why I chose Plato’s ideal state in portraying how social status in Nigeria contributed towards the social situation in Nigeria today. I so much believe that if the aim and spirit in which Plato created his ideal state is followed in reevaluating and reconstructing our society. It will lead to a harmonious and well-ordered society. Plato wanted a society free from corruption, injustice, economic wastes (through poverty and extreme riches), laziness, ignorance and other social evils. He wanted a well structured and organised society where everyone from any social class does his duty well.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Man is naturally a social animal; that is why Aristotle said, “He who is unable to live in society or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself must be either a beast or a god”1. Because of the inevitability of human society, the study of different aspects of human society also became inevitable. Some thinkers who studied human society came to the conclusion that differences in social status of the individuals in any given society are inevitable and important. For this reason, many thinkers have tried to study different areas of social status and stratification, coming out with views and theories on status in the society. Here it will be good to x-ray how some thinkers tried to portray their idea of social status in practice and others in writings and teachings.
PLUTARCH
Plutarch of Chaeronea, a famous Roman biographer, wrote on Lycurgus of Sparta as a political figure. Lycurgus is believed to have lived during the 9thC.BC, and gave the famous constitution of Sparta.2
Lycurgus was seen as a very obedient religious ruler. To make his society conform to his dream of ideal state, he reclined to the dictates of the oracle of Delphi. The oracle told him to:
Have the people phyle’d into phyles, and obe’d them into obes, establish a council of thirty elders, the leaders (kings included and shall from time to time assemble… The commons have the final say and decision. If the people decide crookedly it should be lawful for the elders and leaders to dissolve 3
Lycurgus believed that every person by nature is unique and is where and what nature designed him to be. But that do not affect his importance in the society and before the gods; whether poor or rich does not diminish one’s importance in the society. Difference in honour or prestige is a creation of man. So, for this reason he fought to reduce, if not close the gap between the rich and the poor in his society. Plutarch explained that he might expel from the state arrogance and envy, luxury and crime, and those yet more inveterate diseases of want and superfluity; he obtained of the rich to renounce their properties. He consented to a new division of the land, and that they should live all together on an equal footing. Merit should be their only road to eminence (that is to say, there should be no favouritism or any form of corruption on the way to winning social honour), and disgrace becomes a reward for evils and credit for worthy acts. Their one measure of difference between man and man should be also merit.4
To reduce too much wealth acquisition, he introduced heavy iron coins and discouraged foreign investments. This improved local productions. He, in addition, made the rich to share common meals with the poor, in order to reduce luxury and divisions.
This ordinance particular exasperated the wealthier men. They collected in a body against Lycurgus, and from ill words came to throwing stones, so that at length, he was forced to run out of the market-place, and make to sanctuary to save his life.5
It is believed that this Lycurgusian state is the model on which Plato, Diogenes and Zeno build their ideal states.
ARISTOTLE
For Aristotle, just as it is natural for man to be social, so also it is natural that some people are to rule and others ruled. To this question of social equality or status, Aristotle wrote
There is no difficulty in answering this question, on ground both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but also expedient, from the hour of their birth some are marked out for subjugation, others for rule.6
Aristotle believed strongly that social inequality is natural. For him, it is doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their body as much as the statues of the Gods do from men. With these mere bodily differences, he opined, “the inferior class should be slaves of the superior.”7 Because “nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making one strong for servile labour, the other upright, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace”8, continued Aristotle. In the same frame of mind, Aristotle held that the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior. And the one rules, and the other is ruled; “this principle of necessity”, he said, “extends to all makind”9.
CHAPTER THREE
THE IDEAL STATE
Plato, in his famous book on politics called “The Republic,” proposed an ideal state built on justice and to be run with justice. We should understand that Plato is a moralist. That is why Copleston wrote, “Plato’s political theory is developed in close connection with his ethics.”1 Plato was quite aware that formulating the concept of a just society is not an easy task. So he said, “Do you think, then, that we should attempt such a survey? For it is, I assure you, too big a task”.2 He started from the underlying principles of any society, even the simplest. The first principle is mutual need. For him, men are not self-sufficient; they need to live together in the society. The second principle is difference of aptitude. Different people are good at different things, and it is better for all that each should concentrate in developing his particular aptitudes.3
CHAPTER FOUR
SOCIAL STATUS, NIGERIAN CASE
Social stratification is the term used by sociologists to describe the patterned structures of inequality that are present in all societies1. Andy, the author of the book “sociology Explained”, outlined four important social divisions more identifiable to most sociologists as follows: those of class, gender, ethnicity, and age2. For him these are the four keys that are used to unlock any social analysis. Some other dimensions of social stratification, according to the encyclopaedia of social sciences, include: power, occupational and knowledge, religion and ritual purity, family and ethnic-group position, and local community status3. In line with the fact that, “every society is unique, and must be viewed as the product of unique historical and cultural development4, opined Weber. I wish therefore, to deal with only four of the aforementioned dimensions of social stratifications here. These are the ones I considered more important to Nigerian society in relation to Plato’s idea of ideal state. They include; power, income and wealth, ethnic-group position, and gender; some more will be x-rayed in chapter five.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
I have surveyed the Plato’s ideal state in relation to Nigerian society, and I found that Nigeria is suffering from misplacement of priorities. She misplaced being important to the society with social status in terms of external possession. They pursue the shadow leaving out the reality. Being great, for Plato, is being of great importance to the society, for no one lives for himself. It is not because of wealth accumulated. Our past revered national heroes are rated high for their selfless services and sacrifices they made for the good of the nation. Mandela Nelson of South African, for an example, is rated as highest and best African leader neither because of his wealth nor educational certificates. It is not because of the quality or quantity of his wealth nor of educational certificates. It is because of the quality of his sacrifices and services to his nation.
What Nigeria needs now most are patriots not wealthy men. Wealth and money have done us more harm than good. A good man in an office is better than the totality of material possession of that organisation. This is because; the status of any organisation is dependent on individuals in that organisation. Wealth cannot be useful without man giving it value. Nigeria is blessed with natural resources, yet she is the second most corrupt society in the whole world. Her great wealth is unable to rescue her from that ugly situation. The wealth does not suffer the shame; rather, we Nigerians, who use the wealth wrongly. Nigeria needs true patriots. True patriotism is possible only when the people who rule and those under them have a common and genuine goal of uplifting the national status, rather than individual selfish interest. There will also aim at maintaining the dispensation under which the nation lived. This will only happen if the nation is ruled justly. Only the just patriots can rule justly and give everyone his or her due considerations. He will try to reduce the gap between the highest and the lowest paid public servants. He will throw overboard religious and ethnic dimensions of appointment and holds onto meritocracy; he will jettison every act of godfatherism in political realm. He will also abandon unjust discriminating method of allocating national resources but hold onto justice. He will relegate favouritism and nepotism and ensure that women are given their right place in national offices, since they are naturally important to any human society and organisation that have interest of the whole citizens. The only dimension of social stratification he will consider important is one based on the importance of one to the nation. How one contributes to the general good of the nation. This is what Plato advocated for. Though, we will not use sex as a congratulatory package to those who distinguished themselves as national heroes as Plato suggests. Rather we shall try to make them feel recognised as the South Africans uphold their national hero, Nelson Mandela.
More so, our social or national problem will continue to be or even grow was as far as individual position is considered more important than that of the society at large. Beside this, our cry for a good leader to lead Nigeria into the promise land will continue to be a dream unless if all or, at least, most of us turned round and place higher premium on the higher status of the society than on individuals. Any leader who is qualified to have the name “good leader” is the one who does not have the interest of few so-called important personnel in mind, but the good of the general public. That is why Plato opined that,
For that shan’t we need men who, besides being intelligent and capable, really care for the community?… So we must choose from among our Guardians those who appear to us on observation to be most likely to devote their lives to doing what they judged to be in the interest of the community.4
At this juncture, I would say that the best dimension for social stratification should be based on one’s contribution towards the betterment of the society; never on political power, economic power, educational level or standard, ethnicity, age or gender, nor political party. It should be solely on contribution to social upliftment; because the social status of any society grows or declines, depending on the contributions of her citizens to either building up or destroying the social pride.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ACHEBE, C., The Trouble With Nigeria. Enugu: Forth Dimension Publishing Co., Ltd., 1998.
- ANDY, B, and TERRY, B., Sociology Explained.. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
- ARISTOTLE, Politics. Britannica Great Books, Vol. 9, 1982,
- COPLESTON, F, A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1, New York: Continuum, 2003.
- DAVID, L ET AL (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Social Science. Vol. 14 and 15, New York: Collier-McMillan Publishers, 1972.
- NKRUMAH, K, Class Struggle In Africa. London: Panaf Books Ltd., 1980.
- OMOREGBE, J, A Simplified History of Western philosophy. Vol. 1, Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd., 2003. Knowing Philosophy. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd., 1990.
- ONWUEJEOGWU, M, A, The Social Anthropology Of Africa “An Introduction”. London: Heinemann Education Books Ltd., 1981.
- PLATO, The Republic. “translated by Desmond Lee”, London: The Penguin Books Ltd., 1987.
- PLUTARCH, Lycurgus. Britannica Great Books, Vol. 14, 1982,
