Ousia Aphanes : Justice and the Market in light of Plato’s Republic, I and II

Scholars often distinguish book I of the Republic from the rest of Plato’s dialogue. Without arguing against this view, I suggest that books I and II can be read together fruitfully, as a preliminary discussion of the relationship between money and political authority. Indeed, the first book offers a window into a socio-political “crisis of reciprocity,” concomitant with the rise of coinage in the Greek world, that formed part of the social context of Platonic political philosophy. Along with the emergence of the polis (city-state), the rise of coinage displaced the pre-political order of gift-exchange. Gift-exchange provided a symbolic mediation for social order, but the polis displaced this function, effectively “privatizing” gift-exchanges. Meanwhile, the spread of coinage brought the realm of individualistic, utilitarian exchange – formerly marginalized – into the heart of the city. Seen in this context, establishing a new mediation between the market and the polis is a central challenge of the Republic. Book II introduces the abstract idea of “the market” into Western thought. However, we should not read Plato’s theorization of this, “civic,” market alone, but against the “revolutionary” face of money on display in book I’s quarrel about justice – which is also a quarrel about money and its relationship to human and divine debts, friendship, and individual gain. As I argue, a crucial goal of Plato’s Republic is to persuade Athenians to adopt a new understanding of money as an instrument of positive or constructive reciprocity, and thus, as a part – but not the whole – of political justice. 1 This goal requires Plato to formulate a theory of the market and to circumscribe the market and its logic within the boundaries of the Republic’s paradigm of justice, the kallipolis. Underpinning this theoretical move is the analogical relationship Plato posits between the soul and the city. Just as the healthy soul comprises three hierarchically ordered parts – reason, “spiritedness,” and appetite – the city is composed of three classes – philosopher-rulers, guardians, and “moneymakers.” 2 The Republic calls for a subordination of market norms to the imperatives of justice in the polis. Accordingly, Plato advocates a philosophical renovation in Athenians’ understanding of money 3 as an instrument of both distributive and corrective justice. But in the first place, in order to subordinate the logic of markets to that of political justice, Plato had to separate the two spheres – market and polis – analytically. Thus, Plato should be recognized as the first significant theorist of the market in Western political thought, not only as its first great critic. In other words, the radical, Platonic distinction between the market sphere and the political sphere is a presupposition of what counts as “market logic” in Western discourse. If nothing else, then, to return to Platonic origins on this point is to remind ourselves of the inherited and contingent aspects of notions such as “market logic.” Returning to the origins of concepts is both an occasion to break the spell of reification and an opportunity to understand better the intentions of