Was Plato’s View of the Nature and Capabilites of Women any More Positive than Aristotle’s?
Was Plato's View of the Nature and Capabilites of Women
any More Positive than Aristotle's?
"Having dispensed with the individual family in his system of government, and not
knowing any longer what to do with women, he finds himself forced to turn them
into men".
Plato and Aristotle, two of the most influential philosophers in the Ancient World,
both had radical views on the nature and capabilities of women. Many of these
views were similar, yet somehow Plato became a champion of the female cause,
while Aristotle was labelled a male chauvinist. This essay will look to discover
whether Plato really was an early feminist, or whether we are looking too far into
his ideas.
Plato, in the Republic, argues that women should be able to take on the same
social roles equally with men in his ideal state. His ideas are based upon the view
that women and men have the same nature in respect to acting as guardians of
the state, expect that the one is weaker while the other is stronger . However, just
one generation later Aristotle returns women to their traditional roles in the home,
being subservant to men. There is no equality in nature for Aristotle, and in the
Politics he declares:
"..as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the
male ruler and the female subject. And the same must necessarily apply to all
mankind."
For now, however, our thoughts will concentrate on Plato and what he really
thought of women and their capabilities.
Firstly we should make clear that at no point does Plato deny that there are
differences between the two sexes - his ideas on equality lie solely in the nature of
humans. He does not pretend that women are as physically capable as men, nor
does he deny that women are better at tasks like weaving. He does not say,
though, that one could not be better than the other if they'd had the same training.
And this is precisely his main argument in the Republic - that given the same
training, education and opportunities, suitable women could be equally suited to
the position of guardian as their male counterparts.
Plato informs us that women are physically weaker than men, yet he implies that
this is not a sufficient reason to prevent women from being trained in warfare. In
his Laws he mentions women from Pontus who are trained in weapons, so he
can hardly be saying women are incapable of learning these arts, even if they may
not be quite as good at them as men. However he does believe that even if
women are trained the same as the men, it would be better for them to do the
easier tasks:
"..they will receive lighter duties than the men, because of the weakness of their
sex."
This is not a derogatory comment, rather it is a fact. Plato knows that physically
the male is naturally stronger, and while women can be trained to be strong, it is
physically unlikely that they could be as strong as a trained male. It would, though,
be useful to have women trained in warfare, to act as a backup to the city in times
of trouble.
In Plato's ideal state both capable men and women would be allowed to act as
guardians of the state. They would be trained in the same skills, for human nature
would allow that either sex would be able to do most things if taught, and they
would have the same role:
"After all, it's the same nature the educational system takes
on in both cases."
The women that are good at sports and warfare, and who are philosophically
inclined, would make the best guardians. He also agrees, that as in the case of
men also, some of the women would not be suitable:
"Some women may make good guardians, then, while others won't, since these
were the innate qualities we selected as the marks of men who would make good
guardians."
Although Plato here appears to be showing belief that women can be men's
equal, he denies that they could ever be as able as men:
"The one gender is far superior to the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
inclined, would make the best guardians. He also agrees, that as in the case of
men also, some of the women would not be suitable:
"Some women may make good guardians, then, while others won't, since these
were the innate qualities we selected as the marks of men who would make good
guardians."
Although Plato here appears to be showing belief that women can be men's
equal, he denies that they could ever be as able as men:
"The one gender is far superior to the other in just about every sphere."
Plato's best women, then, must be those who are only level with the second best
of men. They would be better than all those men below second best, yet they
could never be as good as the best of men. Perhaps, as Calvert says, Plato
means that 'while men and women have corresponding ranges of talents, men
possess these talents to a greater degree.' Although this may not necessarily be
flattering to women, it was certainly better that what Aristotle believed.
Aristotle thought that this was how life ought to be, with women in subjection, while
Plato at least had the idea that it could, or should, change. When saying how men
were superior to women, perhaps we should consider that Plato may just be
telling us how it was in those days. Middle class women would have been married
off in their teens, and if they did not then die during childbirth, they could look
forward to a life shut away in the house weaving cloth. Plato must have
recognised the waste of human resources in this social system, and thus
opposed it. It would have been difficult for him to present his revolutionary ideas,
though, without incorporating at least some of the traditional views, for a typical
Athenian man would certainly not have been convinced by Plato's appeal to the
idea of relative difference. The general view of the day appears to be as follows:
"..the virtue of a man consists in managing the city's affairs capably, and so that
he will help his friends and injure his foes while taking care to come to no harm
himself. Or if you want a woman's virtue, that is easily described. She must be a
good housewife, careful with her stores and obedient to her husband."
Yet it is also possible that Plato really did believe that women were inferior. The
derogatory comments that he occasionally slips in - where he still sees women as
sex objects given to brave warriors - may show he has a misogynistic tendency.
However, unlike most men of the period, perhaps Plato was prepared to
advocate equality because of the demands of his form of justice. Several of his
other works are quite disparaging towards women, though, with only the Republic
really showing any inclination towards true equality. In the Apology Socrates call
those who plead in court 'no better than women' ; and in the Phaedo he talks of
the distractions of female lamentations. Perhaps the most damning thought of all
occurred in the Timaeus (42b-c) where Plato clearly stated that if men lived
immorally then they would be reincarnated as women.
If Plato really was a misogynist then his work would not have aroused such severe
criticism from Aristotle, who thought Plato's revolutionary ideas were
disgraceful. Perhaps, therefore, we need to look at his change in opinion of
women from the Republic to the Laws.
In the Laws Plato returns to the traditional view of women. He states the relative
differences - which he had previously made out to be equal - would prevent
women being in any way equal to men. He points out, for example, that women
have an inferior virtue than men , and that it is necessary for women to listen to
different music . Music was inspirational for men, especially in battle, yet it was
more apt for women to listen to emotional music because they were emotionally
inclined. He also shows how he was aware of the danger of freeing women from
their confined, domestic role without giving them an alternative function. He has
Socrates give the example of the Spartans to discourage any legislator from:
"...letting the female sex indulge in luxury and expense and disorderly ways of life,
while supervising the male sex."
So why should Plato change his views? Perhaps the most obvious answer here
is that the Republic is an ideal situation, predominantly unachievable, whereas the
Laws has moved to a conventional and practical situation, one that is
recognisable and believable. If this is the case, then perhaps Dickinson was right
when he said 'the claim of male superiority should simply be understood as a
remnant of masculine prejudice.'
This masculine prejudice manifested itself most potently in Plato's pupil Aristotle.
Aristotle could not conceive under any circumstances that women could ever be
men's equals. He saw the male as naturally superior, and this was a superiority
that could not be equalled by any form of culture or education. He saw the female
as not only naturally physically weaker but also weaker of soul. And this weakness
of soul was as important in the nature and capabilities of woman as was physical
weakness. Aristotle, like Plato, believed that social roles should be filled
according to an individual's nature, and this relevant nature was psychological.
Therefore, when he looks to find roles for men and women in the polis, he
appeals to the relevant features of the soul:
"For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without
authority, and the child has, but it is immature."
Therefore a woman's soul lacks the essential qualities to be able to make
informed decisions about anything. They lack moral virtue in the same
moderation, and have different levels of temperance and courage:
"..the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman
in obeying."
What we have here with Aristotle is a situation whereby the soul takes on the
characteristics of the sex of the body. So a female soul has the nature ascribed to
the female body, and the male soul that nature for the male body. Why this is
important is the main difference between Aristotle and Plato, for Plato believed
that the soul was essentially 'sexless', that it was external influences that cultivated
and educated the soul, and not the sex of the body that determined roles.
Other than the weaker female soul, Aristotle's main line of argument is concerned
with biology and the act of procreation. It appears that Aristotle believes that
women are in some way biologically deficient , and that this has some sort of
profound effect on their psychological deficiency. In his Generation of Animals he
comments that where a lack of heat affects the male semen the result will be
female or deficient offspring . This appears to be because in the conception of a
female, the form (semen) takes an imperfect hold on the matter (female egg), and
therefore the soul is taking an imperfect mastery of the body. He also comments
that the generation of the female is no better than that of mutilated male.
The fact that a child is born female does not necessarily make it totally deficient,
though, for the female does have some uses for Aristotle. Actually, the woman has
one use, for nature only gives things one special function, and that function is the
procreative one. The female will carry the foetus, give birth and suckle the young,
and this role is reserved by nature for women. As the male role in procreation is
short, men are obviously designed by nature to deal with the out-of-house
activities, such as politics. To have women doing anything other than 'homely'
activities would be to go against nature, and with women being emotionally
susceptible they must therefore be ruled by men, who are emotionally steadier.
Women were only fit to be subjects of male rule.
Plato, however, does not see the bearing of children as a problem in the
education of women, nor is it a hindrance to their role as guardian. He sees it as
totally plausible for nurses to take on the role of looking after the child , after an
initial period of suckling, in order that the chosen women could continue their
duties in the civic arena. Yet not all scholars believe Plato's intentions were true.
Moller-Okin believes that he was forced to regard women as equals by his
abolition of the private household, which took away their traditional role . Yet this
is unfair, for he could just have easily assigned women to male guardians 'as
breeding partners and nurse maids' . Another attack on Plato comes from
Pomeroy , who insists that Plato did not intend for women to ever be equal in
status to men. She notes that female guardians are referred to nine times as
communal property, presuming that Plato could not conceive women living without
make tutelage; perhaps more interestingly she points out that at no point does
Plato bring about the idea of husband-sharing. Excellent male guardians could
have many women in order to find the best mother of his children, whereas the
same should have applied to female guardians if Plato really wanted to improve
the race of guardians genetically.
Fortenbaugh refutes the claims made by Pomeroy above. Against women being
communal property he brings to mind Socrates' second wave. This asserts that
women are to hold house and mess in common with male guardians (458b), are
provided assistance against the disabling labours of child care (460d), and are
even allowed sexual freedoms similar to those granted to male guardians (458c-
d). In 459d Socrates also insists that the best men and the best women are
brought together as often as possible to create strong offspring. Clearly Plato
must think that eugenics demands excellence on both sides, and that the female
has something to offer to the process of procreation - which is more than can be
said about Aristotle.
So we have arrived at a scenario which is familiar when reading into Plato's
'feminism'. There are cases where Plato appears to advocate complete equality
between certain men and certain women, to allow them to participate in the same
upbringing and education, to give them the same opportunities to achieve
success in guardianship; yet there are also cases in later works whereby a typical
male misogynistic tendency - of the time - creeps in. We cannot blame these
comments on carelessness and inconsistency, for they arise out of a deep-rooted
belief that women are inferior to men. By seeing this we are not rejecting Plato's
views, rather we are recognising his vulnerability to prejudices of his age. His
errors cause him to become somewhat less of a feminist, although his
considered proposals remain revolutionary for his time. Plato recognised that
women had something to offer the state, and although the scenario in the
Republic was predominantly unrealistic, the very fact that he considered a new
role for women implied he was prepared for change.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a typical view of women. They were little other
than incubators and were certainly not capable of doing anything other than
household chores. They had to be ruled by men to be kept in line, and it was their
nature to be subordinate. Their souls were inextricably linked to their sex, and this
in turn made them psychologically deficient. Plato's 'sexless' soul in a sexed body
allowed him to persuade that essentially the nature of men and women was the
same, as their souls did not in essence differ. In nearly every way Plato's view of
women was by far the better of the two. Aristotle's woman was an object, Plato's
woman was a human being with a capacity to be educated. She was ahead of
her time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, M. (1995) Plato's View of the Wandering Uterus
in Classical Journal 91.2 pp153-164
Allen, P. (1985) The Concept of Woman Eeerdmans Press
Bar On, P.A. (1993) Engendering Origins: Feminist Readings in Plato & Aristotle
Suny Series
Calvert, B. (1975) Plato and the Equality of Women
In Phoenix 29 pp233-242
Cavarero, A. (1995) In Spite of Plato: Feminist Rewriting of Ancient Philosophy
Routledge
Clark, S. (1982) Aristotle's Women
in History of Political Thought 3 pp177 - 191
Dickason, A. (1973) Anatomy & Destiny: The Role of Biology in Plato's Women
in Philosophical Forum 5 p45
Fortenbaugh, W. (1974) Aristotle on Emotion Routledge
Fortenbaugh, W. (1975) On Plato's Feminism in Republic V
in Apeiron 9.2 pp1-4
Fortenbaugh, W. (1978) Aristotle on Slaves and Women
in Articles on Aristotle 2 ed. Barnes J.
Harris, N. (1987) Women & the Ideal Society: Plato's Republic and Modern
Myths of Gender Massachusetts U.P.
Moller Okin, S. (1977) Philosopher Queens & Private Wives
in Philosophy & Public Affairs 6 pp345-369
Moller Okin, S. (1979) Women in Western Political Thought Princeton U.P.
Pappas, N. (1996) Plato and the Republic Routledge
Pomeroy, S. (1974) Feminism in Book V of Plato's Republic
in Apeiron 8.1
Smith, N. (1983) Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women
in Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 p467-478
Wender, D. (1973) Plato: Misogynist, Paedophile and Feminist
in Arethusa 6 pp75-90
Moller Okin p356, a translation of Rousseau. Emile 699-700
2 Plato Republic 456a (All translations are by Waterfield, R., 1994, Oxford Classics)
3 Aristotle Politics 1254b
4 Plato Laws 804d
5 Republic 457a
6 Republic 456d
7 Republic 456a
8 Republic 455d
9 Calvert, p238
0 Plato Meno 71e
1 Republic 460b
2 Apology 35b
3 Politics 1264b ff
4 Laws 781b
5 Laws 802d-e
6 Laws 806a-c
7 Dickinson p.71
8 Politics 1260a
9 A point up by Fortenbaugh p.138 ff.
20 Generation of Animals 766a - 767b
21 This idea is brought up by Smith p.477, and I presume it is to be interpreted in this
manner.
22 Generation of Animals 737a
23 Politics 1254b
24 Republic 460c-d
25 Moller Okin p349
26 Smith p471
27 Pomeroy p33
