Sex and the Second-Best City

Sex and Society in the Laws of Plato

Kenneth Royce Moore

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135474515
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Altertum

Sex and the Second-Best City deals with the topics of sex and society in the Laws of Plato with recourse to historical context and modern critical theory. It examines reconstructions of ancient "sexuality" with a view to increased clarification. The text of the Laws is considered, along with many of its literary qualities, its influences and the utopian plan that it proposes.

Chapter I
Modern Theory, Ancient ‘Sexuality’

The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.

—L. P. Hartley¹

We mythologists know very well that myths and legends contain borrowings, moral lessons, nature cycles, and a hundred other distorting influences, and we labour to cut them away and get to what might be a kernel of truth.

—Isaac Asimov²

Well, man, you’re doomed to repeat it otherwise. There’s continuity and there’s foolishness.

—Keith Richards³

Let no one say that we have reached every conclusion about human sexuality. The topic remains in the crucible of modern cultural theory and is hotly debated in all media. No cultural artefact that addresses this issue should be disregarded; although, all such artefacts should be weighted according to their merits. In November of 2001, a BBC2 television documentary on modern taboos pointed out that, roughly since the 1970s, male fashion advertisements and icons of pop-culture have become increasingly homoerotic. Perhaps surprisingly, these adverts are not geared exclusively toward homosexuals. Their primary demographic target consists of those men who would probably identify themselves as unequivocally heterosexual. This trend of increasing homoerotic representation shows no sign of subsiding in the near future. It is perhaps possible to speculate that certain shadowy members of the gay-male community have perpetrated some cunningly engineered conspiracy—but such a thing seems altogether unlikely. There must be some other reason why homoerotic imagery that idealises the male form in such a manner that could readily be construed as sexual is considered to appeal so positively (enough to sell clothes, jewellery, cigarettes etc.) to presumably heterosexual men. The BBC television programme, perhaps wisely, offered no explanation for this queer phenomenon.

No complete explanation is likely to emerge for some time yet to come and we must not take the (albeit) influential medium of television as the best possible academic source on the matter. It certainly is not. However, the clear presence of homoeroticism curiously aimed at heterosexuals that is being highlighted, does perhaps hint at the fact that the sort of paradigms that Western culture is currently utilising for the delineation of sexual categories are somewhat less adequate to the cause than might have been generally supposed. While such issues are examined today within many institutions of higher learning and other similarly sheltered venues, they remain unsettling conversation for the vast majority of other people (including even some of the scholars who specialise in the subject). The reasons for this are numerous and complex. Ultimately, we must admit to some ignorance, at this stage in our development, as to precisely how something as essential as human sexuality actually functions. This is why academics must continue to examine the matter as thoroughly as possible. It can only be to our benefit to plumb its depths, questioning our assumptions and past theories as we go, in seeking a greater understanding. The fact that most people tend to feel so strongly about this subject, despite our impoverished comprehension of it, highlights the necessity for more careful study.

The ancient Greeks make an interesting port of call from which to embark on this ongoing examination. We know with a reasonable degree of certainty that their attitudes toward sex were different from our own. From there the matter of discerning particularities becomes much more difficult. Comparing modern sexuality with the ancient Greek equivalent presumes some clear understanding of the former by which to contrast the latter. It also assumes some understanding of ancient Greek analogues and some general agreement on what the evidence that we have extant actually means. Acquisition of the one, sadly, seems to be almost as daunting a task as the other. But the fact that the problem is difficult should not dissuade one from trying. It is probable that the illumination of ancient Greek sexual mores will also shed considerable light on modern sexuality. The ancient Greeks, free as they were from the Judeo-Christian ideological legacy as well as having existed prior to and apart from the Renaissance-continuum, may have much to tell us about this difficult subject. They lack the ‘distorting influences’ of modern culture and society and their more ‘recent’ antecedents. The Greeks too had cultural and historical influences affecting their view of sexuality. The examination of such things is the essential to the aims of this text.

Is either of these psychosexual states, ancient or modern, somehow more ‘natural’ than the other? This is probably not the case. Both represent situations of various types in which the given culture influences and conditions human psychology. The modification of human behaviour through cultural influences could be called ‘natural’ inasmuch as culture may be seen as an evolutionary development. Can one separate the natural (genetic) influences on sexuality from the external (cultural) influences with impunity? Whatever the totality of their relationship, the latter certainly affect the former.

I am labouring under the premise that Classical scholarship should utilise such methodological techniques as represented by Cultural Studies in the broader sense. It is the purpose of this chapter, at least in part, to clarify this point in greater detail and to expand upon it. It would be erroneous to assert that the modern academic forces engaged in the Classics are exclusively occupied, ostrich-like, with sifting through the past without regard for the present or the future. This is not the case in the least. The Classics in particular may be regarded as a means of ‘backing into the future’. That is, with scholarly recourse to the ancient past, we may project something of the path of events yet to come. Our contemporary re-reading and reinterpretation of ancient texts serves to form our present intellectual zeitgeist as well as laying the foundations for future ways of thinking. As Cartledge says, ‘the ancients themselves not only invented the Western canon but constantly interrogated and reinvented it, and much of what we regard as modern literary theory traces its genealogies to ancient literary criticism and rhetorical theory’.⁴

Clearly derived from the methods of the Classics, modern Cultural Studies is a distinct and separate area of academics. Under the influence of Derrida, Foucault and others, English Lit., History and Sociology have adapted its methodologies. The study of the Classical world is ripe for approaches derived from Cultural Studies. Both it and the Classics are closely related and, by no means, mutually exclusive. The latter hold within their domain vast resources of cultural data that can yield an untold wealth of information about our world today as well as help to shape the thoughts that bring about its future. We can never guess when some new innovation in the Classics may bear valuable fruit. The relatively recent advents of Cultural Studies and Sexuality-based theories serve to bolster traditional methods and augment their potency for scholarly discourse. ‘It turns out’, as Cartledge says, ‘that, with the rise of gender and cultural studies approaches, its sophisticated sexiness and self-consciousness have more to say to us than to earlier readers’.⁵ Our own self-reflection, through the application of modern critical methodologies to the Classics, may be considered to be one of the most important cultural achievements that we have inherited from the ancient Greeks.⁶

It was not unknown to the ancients that a culture produces art.⁷ We may broadly posit that the subjects indicated by the term art should comprise many phenomena such as literature, history, philosophy, painting, architecture etc. but it is not exclusive of other disciplines or media. Since art is always the product of individuals within a particular cultural context, the prospect that the art produced by a given culture bears certain of the ideas and ideals of that culture should not be cause for much surprise. Modern scholarship can deduce many things about the past from studying its artefacts. By extension, numerous insights may be uncovered about our own culture either through examining our artistic and other productions or when viewing them in contrast to another culture—past or present. Yet the discoveries made by us today that yield insight into the distant past, along with our implicit connection with that past as part of a continuum, are often obscured by our own subjectivity (or the indirect influences of the subjectivity of one or more of our forebears).

There is no such thing as a disinterested reading. The subject of this study, the Laws (itself an interested artefact of the 4th century B.C.E.), was intentionally selected and it has been screened through my chosen ‘lens’ of sexuality and critical theory. Such choices reflect an interested reading of Plato, his thoughts and times. Even with the limitations imposed by these subjective selections, this particular re-reading of the Laws in respect to sexuality connects with a broad spectrum of thought both ancient and modern. As indicated earlier, the subject of human sexuality in this era is both topical and controversial.⁸ It is an aim of this examination that it should aspire to a broad political and social relevance. In this way, it will contribute to an on-going and enlightened discussion of a subject of such importance as sexuality in relation to culture and, to some extent, sexuality as the product of culture.

The modern English term ‘sexuality’ is problematic when used in relation to the ancient Greeks. Whenever it is invoked, the reader should understand that it refers to the equivalent paradigm (about which there is much contention) that was a feature of ancient culture and that remains somewhat elusive to our present understanding. There are a number of ways to deal with this problem. One may take a traditionally historicist approach and say that coming to grips with the implicit otherness of the ancient Greeks requires a periodisation of ancient cultural and social institutions based on the extant sources and archaeological evidence. Alternatively, one may choose to accept that their otherness is implicitly beyond our comprehension. Thus ‘by ignoring the marked similarities between classical and modern cultures (and equally within the cultures of the Greek and Roman worlds)’, as Golden and Toohey say, some ‘reconstruct or even invent an ancient world that is so foreign, so completely different in its characteristics as to be near impenetrable’.⁹ Other scholars such as Foucault, Dover, Halperin and Konstan, adopting elements from New Historicism, attempt to formulate a theory of otherness based on their interpretation of the sources in accord with their own historical theories. This approach has sometimes been regarded as biased. In part as a reaction to these, Davidson has attempted to liberate the ancient sources from modern prejudices in order to produce a different model of ancient sexuality. His approach is also arguably subject to a comparable imposition of modern prejudices even while seeking to exclude them. All of these methods represent interested reconstructions (as does this book) but they also strive to broaden our understanding of a very complex subject. Each has its merits and demerits. All contribute to the sum of our knowledge.

Drawing clear boundaries to delineate all the facets of ‘sexuality’, ancient or modern, is a task that largely falls to the psychologist, the cultural theorist and the philosopher (although, perhaps poets do it best). It is an ambitious endeavour. Before undertaking this examination of sexuality and society in the Laws of Plato, it is first necessary to define the use of terms and to outline some of the critical methodologies to be utilised as well as presenting an albeit limited overview of the state of the art of modern theory. This applies both to Classical scholarship and other methodologies. Is ancient sexuality so different from its modern equivalent, in theory and in practise, as to present too much of an impediment to contemporary minds? Surely one must not proceed under such an assumption. To discuss this complex subject adequately, however, is almost impossible without the use of precise, technical language.

Let us turn now to Sexuality-based Theory and the sexual politics of language. The terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are often employed to mean more or less the same thing; i.e., the label for the category to which belong the classes ‘male’ and ‘female’.¹⁰ This should present a simple formula for distinguishing the nominal differences between the bearers of XX and XY chromosomes. However, as with the problem of delineating ancient sexuality, form this point the issue becomes much more complex. Along with the incipient chromosomal makeup of a given individual, in this or any culture, there are likewise myriad social and psychological conventions on what constitutes ‘being a man’ or ‘being a woman’. When one makes reference, for example, to a member of the male or female sex of, e.g. a Latin American nation of the early twenty-first century, a certain stereotype or archetype may emerge. This will probably differ from the same archetype for women and men in, e.g., Germany or France (or most anywhere else—although one should expect some similarities across cultures). These cultural differences, however minute or grandiose, constitute another category called ‘sex-’ or ‘gender-roles’. In addition to these, above and beyond societal influences (yet affected by them) is the individual’s own ‘sexual identity’ or ‘gender identity that fits into the greater category of their state of ‘sexuality’. This concept has a profound impact on an individual’s overall self-identity and is influenced by and influences that sense of holistic identity.

A difficulty with accepting such terms as ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ carte blanche is that they frequently accrue, sometimes in vague and uncertain ways, bits and pieces of meaning from all over and outwith the super-category of sexuality and beyond thus generating much confusion. Frequently, allowing for regional variances, these terms can gain political weight and become the centres of heated debates even on matters of state policy. At the moment, North American academics seem to prefer to avoid the term ‘gender’ in favour of ‘sex’, in designating XX and XY individuals, and ‘sexuality’ as the label for the broader category of things entailed by sexual difference. British scholarship currently appears to prefer the term ‘gender’ for these same things. It is perhaps fair to hazard that there is something innately problematic about th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Currency Conversion
• Series Editors’ Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Chapter I Modern Theory, Ancient ‘Sexuality’
• Chapter II The Laws in Context
• Chapter III Educating Magnesia: Developmental Psychology and Sex Role Stereotyping
• Chapter IV ANΔPEIA: A Special Definition for Magnesia
• Chapter V Sex, the Myth of the Family and Plato’s Stepchildren
• Chapter VI A Brave New Femininity
• Chapter VII Magnesian Moral Hygiene: Same-Sex Relations, Pleasure and Madness
• Chapter VIII General Conclusions
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index