Seventeenth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities

Abstract

Many feminists commentators have claimed that Plato firmly accepts what the Ecofeminists such as Karen J. Warren call the logic of domination. I will show that, while his rejection of the logic of domination is not unvaryingly consistent, Plato uses his Socrates to argue against domination and subjugation in dialogues such as the Republic, Gorgias, and Laws. But Plato’s philosophy of peace has been overlooked as has the common ground he shares with feminists like Karen J. Warren. Here I will argue that Plato has mistakenly been interpreted as an advocate of domination and subjugation on account of at least four factors: (1) including interlocutors who defend the logic of domination, even though they are Socrates’ foils; (2) endorsing a hierarchical notion of leadership in the soul and the city; (3) failing to reject the logic of domination clearly in the context of slavery and misogyny; and (4) most scholars’ aversion to recognizing Plato’s emphasis on concerns about poverty in the Republic and Laws and the cooperative political approach endorsed in the Republic’s First City. In discussing these four factors, I will show how it happens that Plato is mistaken for a war-mongering advocate of domination when a more careful reading of the dialogues actually demonstrates that, much like the Eco-feminists, Plato aspires to a radical transformation of society’s values and social/political structures, policies, and relationships that is oriented toward harmonious cooperation.