In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon relates the
story of a shepherd who, during a violent rainstorm and an earthquake which
breaks the ground and creates a chasm, descends into the fissure and discovers
many wonders, including a bronze horse with window-like openings in it. The
shepherd climbs through one and discovers a corpse wearing nothing but a ring
of gold on its finger. He returns to his life above ground and, while playing
with the ring, discovers that when he turns the hoop toward himself he becomes
invisible, and when he turns it away from him becomes visible again. In short
time, thanks to his newfound power, he seduces the king’s wife, kills the king
with her help, and takes over the kingdom. The upshot of Glaucon’s story is
that given the right opportunity, we will turn from the path of virtue and do
what we can to achieve our ambitions, fulfill our pleasures, and abandon
ourselves to unrepentant profligacy. “Even those who practice justice,”
observes Glaucon, “do so against their will because they lack the power to do
wrong.”
This is an incredibly cynical view. According to
this logic, the only reason we behave with any virtue at all is because we’re
seen by other people. Our real inner nature is chronically frustrated by the
constraints imposed on us by the possibility of someone else seeing what we do.
That’s it: sheer visibility is the only motivating engine of the good we do and
the bad we avoid doing.
I wonder how true this is. I imagine myself being
invisible. The first thing that comes to mind is going naked. I like being
naked. I’d be a nudist if it weren’t for the fact that I’d prefer not to see
that many other people naked. Not everybody looks like Scarlet Johansson. But it
does feel damn good on a warm summer day to walk around without any clothes on.
So that’s the first thing I’d do. Next on my list would be shoplifting. But how
would that work out? Wouldn’t people see items floating off the shelves at the
grocery store? Most jewelers keep their items in a glass counter. How could I
get into the counter if I were invisible? Wouldn’t someone hear me breathing or
fussing with the backs of the display cases, brush up against me, step on a
toe? Stand in open-mouthed awe as they watched rings and necklaces float out of
their case before ringing for security? And what if, as some woman bent closer
to get a look at a diamond solitaire, I coughed, or sneezed, and tried using
her blouse to wipe my nose? Would people scream? Faint? I try to remember what
went on in H.G. Well’s novel The
Invisible Man. It’s been many years since I read it, or saw the movie, but
I clearly remember it ended badly.
This is, of course, beside the point. Would I, given
the opportunity, the complete wherewithal to do bad things with impunity, and
with no one knowing my true identity, steal, kill, play out every libidinal and
instinctual whim that came to mind? Squeeze boobs and run away laughing? Steal
cars, grab money from people at the cash machines, through rocks through
windows?
I don’t think it’s in me to do those things. Maybe
I’m too old. I don’t know. Have I become tame in my waning years? I don’t do
bad things not because I’m fearful of people seeing me and tarnishing my image
in the community, or having scorn and abuse heaved on me, not to mention
imprisonment, but because it’s not in me to do bad things. If I do something
good, it’s not because some invisible film crew is watching my actions, or the
mayor and city council are nearby with a trophy and a golden sash to present to
me as soon as they see I’ve done something virtuous, helped a blind person
across the street or returned a stray dog to its owner. If I do something bad
it’s done inadvertently, by accident or negligence, not because I intended to
do something bad, and certainly not because I felt I was hidden or invisible.
And if I do something good it’s because it was in me to do something good. I generally
act out of compassion. Nor do I believe I’ve cornered the market on virtuous
behavior. I’ve had enough favors and kindnesses done to me over the years to
believe that a substantial number of people in the human family are inclined (at
least part of the time) to do good without reward or recognition, nor do bad
when no one is looking. Or think no one is looking.
So I believe Glaucon is wrong. Except in one area:
bankers. High finance. Corporations and the people that occupy their higher echelons.
These people are for the most part invisible. These are the people that, to
quote Nomi Prins, perpetrated “corporate malfeasance of epic proportions,”
“massively destructive deceptions” calculated to fleece the public of their
money with “fraud-induced bankruptcies.” And it’s still going on. Nothing has
been done to regulate these institutions. Corporations are destroying the
planet with hydraulic fracking, war profiteering, reckless and unrepentant oil
spills, destroying biodiversity with genetically modified “killer seeds,” wreaking
havoc among ecosystems and delicate habitats, monitoring employees with global
positioning systems, using lobbying as a strategic weapon to distort
competitive markets and create monopolies, transforming our universities into
profit-driven, overcrowded job factories that saddle their graduates with
crippling debts, and shifting heavy tax burdens to the public while they go
scot-free. Here in Seattle none of the big corporations, Boeing, Microsoft or
Amazon, pay their fair share of taxes. Boeing, in fact, enjoys a minus 3.3
percent tax bracket. We owe them money. Meanwhile, the infrastructure is going
to shit and the giant drill the city purchased from Japan has already broken
down and sits in waterfront mud waiting to be disassembled. The mayor, however,
has made sure the city has bicycle lanes.
Why do these people manage to do so much harm with
so much impunity? Has there ever been a moment in human history in which evil
of this magnitude has been so rampant and so unpunished? I find it interesting
that while corporate managers remain comfortable in their invisible realms of
power they use high technology to spy on, intimidate, and dehumanize their
employees. Or kill people from a safe distance with drones.
Why do people do evil? Why do people do good? Is it
possible to do good and evil
simultaneously? Is it sometimes evil to do something good? Is it sometimes good
to do something evil? And why are outlaws so damn sexy?
It’s the bank robbers who are sexy. The guys with
guns. Out in the open. It’s their bravado that makes them sexy. It’s the sneaky
bankers and CEOs and politicians that rob people sneakily, invisibly, that do
the most harm and create the most toxic consequences. They’re not sexy;
monstrous, yes. They’re hideous, blood-sucking hemorrhoids that work in the
dark. They’re about as sexy as a genital wart. But rich, with an estate in the
Hamptons with 35 toilets and a kitchen with every conceivable amenity.
Socrates answers Glaucon by a long, indirect route.
He describes the city, cities in general, and how it is that all the people of
a city require food and shelter and clothing, and that this is the reason for
the city to exist, that each person has a task to fulfill, the best to his or
her ability, and that because each person fulfills a task such as the growing
of food or making and mending of clothes, the building of houses and ships,
each person is able to benefit from these things, since no single person is
capable of growing food, building a house, making and mending clothing, caring
for the elderly and sick, etc., entirely on their own. Everything is made
easier by sharing these tasks. So what does any of this have to do with good
and evil?
Socrates ascribes war and violence to a city that
has exceeded its needs and has developed a taste for luxuries. Then the people
of the city must conquer and take what they desire from other people and other
things. And to prevent one’s own city from being conquered and pillaged, it is
necessary to build an army of tough, honor-bound soldiers. Soldiers who are
brutal in war and good at killing but who treat their own families and
citizenry with respect and gentleness. And the way to arrive at these virtues
is through the telling the proper kind of stories. Stories that inspire honor
and valor. Bad stories, which are stories that distort the truth, create bad
people. And here he begins to rail against poets. For it is the poets who tell
lies and distort the actions of the gods and give the impression that sometimes
it is the god or gods who are guilty of the things people do and not the people
themselves. That they are skilled at making untruths seem as truths, and
blurring the line between what is true and what is not true.
I totally disagree with Socrates on these points,
but he’s gone and no longer available for debate. He’s become as invisible as
one can be, which is to die, and decompose, and go god knows where. He may be
nowhere. He may be somewhere. Only Socrates knows where Socrates is, or is not.
He has, however, prepared the way, and for that I am grateful.
I would agree wholeheartedly with Socrates if he
were addressing the issue of video games that glorify brutality and killing,
that exalt stealth and violence and that use their art to inspire this kind of
madness in the young. Narratives that give the impression that life, to be
experienced to its fullest and richest extent, must be had by barbaric and
violent action. Or that war and killing are sexy, manly pursuits, the province
of heroes, à la John Wayne’s tough guy posturing or the pageantry of the Roman
gladiator, mercilessly plunging a sword into the body of the defeated while the
crowd roars their admiration. This is what one finds in television and movies
and video games, not necessarily in poetry. What one finds in poetry is a far
different reality. It amazes me that the Socratic dialogues are composed with
so much poetry, and yet distrusts the very quality that has brought them to
life. The very quality that makes them compelling, and capable of truth at
all.
The model that Socrates proposes is based on a logic
of mutuality. Each person contributes to the collective whole and benefits from
the collective whole. To do harm to another member is to do harm to oneself
because one is involved in a system of interrelation. Socrates says nothing
about a hierarchy in which some members are compensated more royally than
others, or that some members are more highly skilled than others and so deserve
a higher compensation. His chief worry is that the army gets out of hand and
begins abusing its citizens. Keep the poets away from the army, above all. I’ll
go along with that.
Socrates doesn’t really answer Glaucon’s implication
of perversity. The feeling that there is inside everyone a desire to indulge
one’s pleasures regardless of who gets hurt. What is lacking is the power to do
it; given the right set of circumstance, the best of us will give in to
temptation and do wild and crazy things. There isn’t any logic there. Human
behavior doesn’t fit a syllogistic pattern.
Socrates saves his discussion about theia mania, divine madness, for The Phaedrus.
Rousseau, in his book The Social Contract, saw people as inherently good. Hobbes, in his
book Leviathan, saw people as inherently
bad. Nietzsche saw good and evil as relativist concepts, the one comprehensible
only in relation to the other, and each a matter of subjective, willed belief.
Hannah Arendt referred to the banality of evil, someone of mediocre character
who follows rules, no matter how good or bad, and does so without undue
reflection. Evil has the potential to rise out of thoughtlessness,
superficiality, indifference; a willingness to do whatever one can to remain
comfortable no matter how one’s actions may affect someone else. There is a
kind of invisibility in this milieu, one’s anonymity providing a cover for
whatever one does. Invisibility, that is, coupled with a willed and deliberate
ignorance.
I dressed as The
Invisible Man one Halloween and did such a successful job wrapping my head
in white bandages and wearing a trench coat and fedora and gloves and cleverly
making my hand disappear at the end of my sleeve, I won an award at a local
video store. And later, at a party, I was asked to remove the bandage. It was
truly frightening people. If only I could’ve achieved true invisibility, or
perhaps went around naked believing myself invisible, somewhat like the story
of the emperor’s new clothes. How does one achieve invisibility in real life?
It’s not that hard, as Ralph Ellison’s novel The Invisible Man points out. Social invisibility due to one’s race
or impoverishment is a problem that continues to plague a huge population of
homeless people.
The protagonist of H.G. Well’s novel is an asshole.
A scientist blown with ambition and mad for power ruthlessly bullies and harms
anyone in his way. It is a story of science gone off its rails, similar in its
warnings to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Griffin (The Invisible Man) is killed by a mob who manage to get hold of his
invisible body and pummel him to death. The image of the dying man is quite
beautiful; as life goes out of his body, his body resumes visibility:
Suddenly
an old woman, peering under the arm of the big navvy, screamed sharply. “Looky
there,” she said, and thrust a wrinkled finger.
And looking where she pointed, everyone
saw, faint and transparent as though it was made of glass, so that veins and
arteries and bones and nerves could be distinguished, the outline of a hand, a
hand limp and prone. It grew clouded and opaque even as they stared.