Classical Sociological Theory. Sinisa Malesevic
in relation to the golden mean has also been criticised for being too vague since it may tell us that the right acts are between two extremes but little else, or more precisely it fails to guide how individuals ought to act in actual situations. His analysis in the Nicomachean Ethics also has Greek aristocratic values and virtues underpinning it (MacIntyre, 1988).
His politics has also been criticised for its discussion of slavery and its naturalisation. However, these were views shared widely in Greek society at the time. There is also a vacillation running throughout his political work between a desire to emphasise the importance of politics and political activity for humans as part of their rational aspect on the one hand, which is central to democratic thinking, and a desire to emphasise the contemplative life (Kelsen, 1937).
Contemporary Relevance
The influence of Plato and Aristotle on Western thought has been profound. This is in a two-fold sense. In a general sense their ideas have filtered down to pervade Western forms of thinking in art, literature, politics and philosophy, and in Aristotle’s case physics and biology.
Plato’s Philosopher Kings
In The Republic, Plato elaborates a theory of expert rule by ‘philosopher kings’ as an alternative to majoritarian democracy. Through the Ship of State metaphor, governance is likened to the command of a sea-going vessel, such that only those suitably qualified should be considered fit to captain. The implication is that public rule is a less effective steering mechanism than knowledgeable leadership, and that ruling requires suitable skills. The ideal statesman is thus a specially trained philosopher, dedicated to the good of the city-state rather than political ambition. As an enlightened ruler, the philosopher king courts true knowledge over the whims of the masses. This exceptional leader should then be granted absolute power, safeguarded by his virtuous, benevolent and incorruptible character. Fundamentally anti-democratic, this idea was influential in the Roman Empire, with Marcus Aurelius approximating the ideal, as well as in early modern monarchical Europe. Today, the idea of enlightened leadership is carried in the ideology of technocracy, which advocates governance by technical experts rather than elected officials.
In a more particular sense, their ideas were central to the teachings of classics which most nineteenth- and some twentieth-century sociologists undertook as part of their educational training. Those who we consider today as the paradigmatic sociological thinkers, for example, Marx, Weber and Durkheim in their discussion of alienation, rationalisation and anomie, all drew on analyses of ancient Greece and antiquity as well as critical engagements with the Enlightenment. Sometimes this was direct; in other cases mediated by the work of Hegel, Nietzsche and Montesquieu, respectively. As Ste. Croix notes:
Marx read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find him describing Aristotle as ‘the acme [Gipfel] of ancient philosophy’ (MECW 1.424); and in Vol. I of Capital he refers to ‘the brilliance of Aristotle’s genius’ and calls him ‘a giant thinker’ and ‘the greatest thinker of antiquity’. (1981: 24)
[Republished with permission of Cornell University Press from The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests, G. E. M. de Ste Croix, 1981]
Marx’s critique of the market draws on Aristotle’s political writings, while the development of a rational communist society, and the distinction between how things appear and how they really are, from Plato. Durkheim’s discussion of the political forms of the collective consciousness draw from his understanding of the Greek Polis, his discussion of the division of labour, derive from both Plato and Aristotle, his discussion of functionalism from Aristotle, while his discussion of education is rooted in Plato. Weber’s discussion of the iron cage and the difference between ancient and modern forms of commerce, and the division between reason and instincts, also draws on Greek thought. The influence of the classical thinkers on the classical sociologists was evident not only in the latter’s critique of political economy, the origins of capitalism, and the formation of collective consciousness and social solidarity, but also in their science and method. All three held the role of social science to be moral – to foster self-realisation, rational discourse or democratic community. McCarthy argues:
From this perspective, sociology is distinctive among the social sciences since its intellectual foundations rest in the remembered landscape of Attica. Modern social theory, science, and critique were formed by a synthesis of empirical and historical research methods with classical Greek assumptions about the nature of knowledge, community, virtue, political freedom, and social justice. By blending together the ancients and moderns, nineteenth century sociology became the most unusual of the social sciences because it self-consciously attempted to integrate empirical research and philosophy, science and the humanities, as no other discipline before or since. However, this distinctive element has been all but lost and forgotten today. (2003: 2)
[Republished with permission of State University of New York Press from Classical Horizons: The Origins of Sociology in Ancient Greece, G. E. McCarthy, 2003]
This forgetting was a consequence not only of the Parsonian influence in the development of sociological thought, transforming it into a utilitarian, positivistic form of thought based on explanation and prediction, but also of foregrounding only Enlightenment forms of rationality. As a result an Aristotelian conception which highlights civic virtue and practical wisdom (phronesis) at the expense of a singular emphasis on the technical and utilitarian science (techne) of explanation and formal causality, disappeared.
Plato’s and Aristotle’s influences have not been restricted to just the classical sociologists; as we shall see they are also present in the work of modern social theorists including Foucault, Habermas and Bourdieu. For example, in the latter we see the concepts of doxa, phronesis, habitus and hexis. Their thought then is a central foil against which sociological theory develops. More recently social scientists such as Flyvbjerg (2001) have attempted to develop a contemporary interpretation of Aristotle’s notion of phronesis by using it as a way to understand social practice and bypass readings of social science and theory, which reduce it to either episteme or techne. The social sciences deal with reflexive actors, values and interests rather than predictive theory.
Conclusion
Although ordinarily seen as philosophers, both thinkers developed what we may refer to as proto-sociological concerns in their work, especially Aristotle, who was more empirically minded. Their thought and thinking as well as the images and metaphors used have continued to influence classical and modern sociological thinking in a variety of ways. However, in order to understand their arguments and assess their explanatory power they need to be contextualised within ancient Greek society.
Note
1 In his books Socrates often expresses Plato’s views in dialogue with others.
References
Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. A. (1998) Handbook to Life in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, P. (1978) Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: Verso.
Aristotle (1998) Politics. C. D. C. Reeve, trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Aristotle (2014) Nicomachean Ethics. R. Crisp, trans. Revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cartledge, P. (2011) Ancient Greece: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Euben, J. P. (1980) Review. Political Theory, 8(2), pp. 245–9.
Finley, M. I. (1991) The Ancient Greeks. London: Penguin.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. S. Sampson, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.