The Perfect Society
“Therefore this day
marks a happy occasion—the day on which we receive our new initiates, who will
work with us toward a better society and a better world.” –Marcus Eaton,
Divergent
Utopia, as defined by the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, is a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and
social conditions. Most of
mankind is consistently surrounded by society; however, the word “utopia” is a
word that we do not make a habit of using to describe the societies we are
surrounded by. Is utopia something that can ever be achieved? By looking at The
Republic of Plato we will explore the meaning of Utopia and compare a utopian
society to a dystopian society.
The Republic of Plato follows a conversation where the
perfect society is being discussed. What makes the perfect society? According
to the conversation within The Republic of Plato, the perfect society is one in
which each individual must follow a particular set of rules that those
conversing believe will have the best effect on the society. Therefore, a
perfect society is one where strict rules are set forth and it is required that
these rules be followed without exception.
Utopia and dystopia are two words
that both describe a place; however, the places that they are used to describe
are on opposite ends of the spectrum. A utopia is an imaginary society where
everything is perfect, whereas, a dystopia is defined as a place where people
are unhappy and afraid due to unfair treatment. It seems
unlikely that this perfect society that is being discussed within The Republic
of Plato was meant to be anything other than a utopia. Despite their best
intentions, when you look at the strict rules set up for this utopian society
the resemblance to that of dystopian society’s in popular culture books today
is astonishing. As I sat pondering the different directions that I could take
with The Republic of Plato text and trying to find a piece of modern media that
would fit well with that direction, it suddenly dawned on me just how many
similarities could be found between the text and one of my favorite trilogies.
A favorite trilogy of mine is the
Divergent trilogy by Veronica Roth. The Divergent
trilogy is set in a dystopian Chicago where its citizens are separated into
five factions based on what they value most: selflessness, peace, honesty,
intelligence, and bravery. The factions are quite segregated with very little
interaction between the different factions. The whole city is fenced in and
heavily monitored and its citizens do not bring into question why they do not
ever leave the city. To question that would be to question the government.
Within The Republic of Plato, one
rule that is hypothetically set forth is one where it is stated that each
individual is to have one job and only one job. It is quoted in book II of the
text, “And, what about this? Who would do a finer job, one man practicing many
arts, or one man one art?” In theory, each individual would find where their
talents lie at a young age, and based on that talent, each individual would be
placed in the job that they would continue in for the entirety of their lives.
Similarly, in Divergent, all
individuals receive an equal education until the age of sixteen at which time
each individual participates in a test to determine which faction they would be
best suited for. Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to choose whichever faction they
desire to be a part of regardless of what their test results are; however, once
an individual has chosen a faction during a ceremony attended by all citizens,
they are locked into that decision.
After joining a faction, each
individual must go through an initiation process in which they are trained in
the ways of the faction. Assuming that they pass the initiation, they are
welcomed into the faction where they will now remain for the remainder of their
lives. Devoted to their faction and what that faction stands for. In both The Republic of Plato and Divergent,
individuals, upon reaching a certain age, are placed in a role that they are
expected to remain in permanently.
The society discussed within The
Republic of Plato was meant to be a utopian society, but by examining the
similarities between this supposed utopian society and a very dystopian
society, I feel that the society within The Republic of Plato becomes more and
more dystopian. While reading dystopian novels that are popular today, there are several
elements that make a dystopian society what it is, but perhaps the most
important is the absence of freedom. And looking at The Republic of Plato, I do
not see a lot of freedom within the fictional society that is being built. This leads me to the belief that The Republic of Plato could easily be seen as
a very early writing of a dystopian society.
The Republic of Plato discusses a society that would
completely shape the individuals and guide them to a point of excellence that
would be fitting for a perfect society. But this raises the question, “what is
a perfect society?” According to the description we have in The Republic of
Plato, the perfect society is one in which every individual willingly
participates in bettering themselves and therefore better their society. I feel
that this description is a far cry from what might be described if you were to
ask someone today how they would define a perfect society.
“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” so the
old saying goes. It is easy for us to grasp how a pile of old furniture thrown
out on the curb by one man could be a treasure to another man. Not necessarily
because we think that furniture is valuable, but because at some point in our
lives, we have all stood in the shoes of the man who has found a treasure among
somebody else’s trash. In the same way, we can grasp how this fictional utopian
society seemed like a winning idea to one man. Not because we agree with
everything about this society, but because at some point we have all come up
with an idea that, in our own minds, was flawless.
The ultimate question here is: can a utopian society
exist? The evidence that we have looked at in comparing the society within The
Republic of Plato to both a utopian society and a dystopian society, has shown
that even this “perfect” society has at least one major flaw; a flaw that leads
me to believe that a utopian society cannot exist on earth. That flaw is that
the society discussed was a utopia to only one man. Because humans were created
to be free-thinking and free to make decisions based on what they believe
individually, it is impossible that all of mankind, or even a town full of
people, would entirely agree on what makes a society a utopia. If it is not a
utopia for everybody involved, it is not a utopia.
In conclusion, the society discussed in The Republic
of Plato is not a utopia. The idea of this society is flawed because a utopian
society cannot exist. Society reflects people and people are not perfect. A utopian
society cannot exist because there is no such thing as a perfect society. There
is no such thing as a perfect society because there is no such thing as a
perfect people. It is this idea of forcing one man’s ideal of a perfect society
on a group of people that leads me to believe that the society discussed in The
Republic of Plato is more like a dystopian society rather than a utopian
society.
