Read a fascinating article in the Yale Journal of Law and Humanities discussing the rationale for Plato's condemnation of homosexuality in the Laws, which has caused me to pause and think about the meaning of homosexuality:
http://www.randallclark.org/publicat/2000a.pdf
I believe Plato's political thought can be characterized as primarily focused on questions of collective security. Plato recognized that the greatest threat to a person is their existential being, and the greatest threat to a social order is an existential threat to the order. The most fundamental basis for any political thinking must relate to establishing laws and customs that promote the collective security of the polis, the city-state in Plato's day, and today the nation-state. Laws and customs which diverge from the interests of collective security will ultimately be abandoned, or they will result in the city becoming conquered by its internal or external enemies. Moreover, in Plato's time, collective security was much more in question, and the consequences of war were much higher. In antiquity, if a city was conquered, the best scenario generally involved the slaughter of all adult males and the sale of the women and children into slavery. In contrast, the last wars fought on American soil were in the 19th century, and America rules as hegemon throughout the Western Hemisphere. American political philosophers are accordingly not very concerned about collective security, they generally assume the inexorable continuation of American power ad infinitum.
In discussing Plato's views, it is also important to reject a fundamental ontological category of modernity: the so-called gay/straight divide. To the modern person, people are sorted into two categories, gay or straight, presumably from birth or before. Moreover, we are frequently told that these categories are the result of genes that determine these characteristics (similar to the way racists explain differences in IQ test results). Plato's conception is more polymorphous. Human beings are erotic beings, but this erotic energy is, to some extent, undirected, wild and chaotic. The purpose of law is to attempt to direct erotic energy into socially constructive directions.
We can imagine a world like Plato's. Perhaps some people in Plato's city would have a very strong attraction to people of the opposite sex, and would be incapable of ever engaging in same sex acts. Likewise, some people in Plato's city would have a very strong attraction to people of the same sex, and would be incapable of ever engaging in heterosexual acts. However, in the middle would be a wide swath of people who could, to some extent, swing either way. It would be at this last group that the law would take aim. (Of course, perhaps modern science and genetics renders the existence of these people impossible.) Obviously a law which punished sodomy would promote heterosexual marriages, which in ancient times, with limited access to contraception, would result in children. So we can understand legal sanctions against homosexuality are fundamentally natalist in principle.
Why would natalism be something that a state might want to encourage? Well, clearly, the larger the population, the greater the specialization, then the larger and better equipped the army--which would in turn open up more opportunities and territory for the surplus population. Good laws and customs would create a virtuous circle of expansion and growth, provided the polity could govern itself, and the laws were not corrupted. In the ancient world, laws against homosexuality, and laws promoting heterosexual marriage, would result in a stronger and safer city, able to defend itself from invaders, and would ultimately promote expansion and conquest. Thus, we should not be surprised that Plato would call for the outlaw of sodomy, not based on superstition, but based on basic strategic and military grounds. [Thus, we can understand the reluctance of the post-Communist governments of Eastern Europe, facing a total demographic collapse and rampant drug and alcohol abuse, to embrace atheism and same sex marriage with the gusto of the West.]
But in fact, Plato's prohibition stems more from internal concerns than external threats. Plato sees human desire as fundamentally as homophilic: "It is according to nature that everyone is always somehow attracted to what is most similar to himself," [at least according Mr. Clark's translation.] Eros for Plato is fundamentally narcissistic. People seek relationships with people like themselves. The rich court the rich. The intelligent court the intelligent. The powerful court the powerful. This also follows for religious, ethnic and racial groups. Within human desire there is a fundamentally incestuous and nepotistic quality. We can witness this characteristic in the hemophiliac royalty of Europe and the autistic progeny of the New Class of Silicon Valley. In contrast, maintaining a common order demands mixing with the Other. If not, the polis becomes concentrated into rich and poor, learned and ignorant, white and black, male and female. The basic civic division between citizen and alien is politically acceptable, even helpful, but divisions within citizens undermines law and order. Thus, although Plato did not live in our time, we can imagine that he would support racial and ethnic miscegnation--perhaps even mandating it in his heavy handed way. Otherwise, the polity would remain internally divided against itself.
Thus, Plato seeks to ban fornication, adultery, masturbation, incest and homosexuality, and to encourage heterosexual procreative marriage, presumably between differently ranked social groups, even recommending that a man marry the lesser of two suitors in the interest of the commonwealth. It should be clear that Plato does not view eros negatively--but rather--he seeks the transformation of eros from a narcissistic, self-absorbed eros, to a truly ecstatic eros that moves beyond the limited division of self, into a higher love, a love of the other, and a love of the polis. Moreover, Plato viewed the role of law as shaping citizens toward a higher civic life, not one based on the excessive accumulation of wealth or a narcissistic self-creation project, but toward a common wealth enjoyed by all. Plato acknowledged the role of the love of the same, but sought to channel that love from a carnal love to a mode of friendship and mutual caring.
Obviously, Plato is not a man of our time, nor did he ever read Ayn Rand, nor had Al Gore invented the internet. Perhaps his views are too demanding of human beings, too heavy handed, too idealistic, and perhaps Aristotle may provide a more grounded view of politics. But the question of law remains with us today, and how we conceptualize the law, either reinforcing the natural human tendencies to segregate and separate, or fighting these tendencies to create a common social order remains an important question.
No comments:
Post a Comment