At the end of the last chapter Aristotle had pointed out that recognition of identity on grounds of likeness would inevitably frustrate Plato’s intention to abolish private family ties among his Guardians. He now describes some awkward consequences of their not recognizing each other: i.e. the removal of certain inhibitions on undesirable conduct, and of certain incentives to desirable conduct. The final paragraph is a complaint that this confusion about identity will be accentuated by the transfer of certain children from one class to another.
Aristotle makes no mention of certain elaborate safeguards that Plato prescribed (e.g. 457–61), and some of his objections seem rather captious. But in general he has a sharp eye for the practical difficulties of Plato’s scheme; and his criticism is the more telling in that he presents the drawbacks not merely as serious in themselves, from anyone’s point of view, but as actually militating against the very ideals of amity and unity of which Socrates makes so much.
1262a25 Here are some further evil consequences which could hardly be avoided by those who set up such a form of association: assault, homicide, both intentional and unintentional, feuds and slander. All these are unholy if they are committed against father or mother or other close relatives, just as they are when committed against non-relatives. Yet such things are even more likely to happen when people are not aware of any relationship than when they are aware. And when they do happen, those who know the relationship can at least make the expiations which religious custom demands; the others cannot.
1262a32 It is equally curious that Plato,1 while making sons shared by all, wishes to prohibit sexual intercourse between lovers, but not love itself, nor its most unseemly manifestations, as between brothers or between father and son,2 where the mere unindulged passion is itself unseemly. And why prohibit sexual intercourse that is otherwise unobjectionable, merely on the grounds of the excessively powerful pleasure it gives,1 and yet believe that it makes no difference if intercourse takes place between brothers, or father and son?
1262a40 Again, community of wives and children is prescribed for the Guardian class. It would seem to be far more useful if applied to the agricultural class. For where wives and children are held in common there is less affection, and a lack of strong affection among the ruled is necessary in the interests of obedience and absence of revolt.
1262b3 So, taken all round, the results of putting such laws as these in practice would inevitably be directly opposed to the results which correct legislation ought to bring about, and moreover to those that Socrates regards as the reason for ordering matters in this way for children and wives. For we believe that the existence of affectionate feelings in states is a very great boon to them: it is a safeguard against faction. And Socrates is emphatic in his praise of unity in the state, which (as it seems, and as he himself says) is one of the products of affection. In another of Plato’s dialogues, one which treats of love, we read3 that Aristophanes said that lovers because of the warmth of their affection are eager to grow into each other and become one instead of two. In such an event one or other must perish, if not both. But in a state in which there exists such a mode of association4 the feelings of affection will inevitably be watery, father hardly ever saying ‘my son’, or son ‘my father’. Just as a small amount of sweetening dissolved in a large amount of water does not reveal its presence to the taste, so the feelings of relationship implied in these terms become nothing; and in a state organized like this5 there is virtually nothing to oblige fathers to care for their sons, or sons for their fathers, or brothers for each other. There are two impulses which more than all others cause human beings to cherish and feel affection for each other: ‘this is my own’, and ‘this is a delight’. Among people organized in this manner5 no one would be able to say either.
1262b24 One further point, about the suggested transfer of children at birth from the farmers or skilled workers to the Guardians, and also the transfer in the opposite direction:6 there is the greatest confusion as to how such transfers shall take place. Those who hand over and transfer the children must be aware which children they are, and to whom they are being handed over. And such transfers would add greatly to the already mentioned risks – assault, homicide, love affairs; for those handed over to the other citizens will no longer use the terms brother, son, father, mother, of the Guardians, nor will those transferred to the Guardians so speak of the other citizens, so as to take precautions against any such act because of their kinship.
That concludes our discussion of community of wives and children.