Great Books Ep 104. Aristophanes - The Ecclesiazusae. The Constant Yearning for Utopia
Idealistic systems fail in so many different ways because of the unpredictability of human nature. Still, people yearn for communal systems were everything is shared and everyone is equal.
“all shall be equal, and equally share All wealth and enjoyments, nor longer endure That one should be rich, and another be poor, That one should have acres, far-stretching and wide, And another not even enough to provide Himself with a grave”
~ ‘The Ecclesiazusae’ by Aristophanes (Benjamin B. Rogers translation. GB5 - p. 621)
Brief Summary
The play opens with Praxagora, an Athenian woman, dressed up in her husband’s clothes and shoes, out on a street with a lamp in her hand, looking for signs of others. It is very early in the morning, and she has asked other women to gather here disguised as men. Slowly, the women come in, and Praxagora reveals her plan to infiltrate the Athenian assembly and vote. She mentions that men have not been doing a good job, and women are better at managing state affairs since they manage the household well. They practice manly walks and speeches and find that most are not so good at talking. They decide that it would be better if Praxagora talks at the assembly since she is very good at it, and they go there.
Then the scene shifts to Blepyrus, Praxagora’s husband, waking up and finding his clothes missing. He wears his wife’s clothes and comes out to find that his neighbor also has the same problem - his wife is missing and his clothes are gone. While they are talking, Chremes, another neighbor, comes in and reports that the assembly got over sooner this time. There were a lot of pale-faced fellows resembling shoe-makers. He describes in detail what happened at the assembly. Different people speak, and when a pale-faced youth who resembled Nicias (we know that this is Paxagora) makes a passionate speech about giving governance to women, a lot of people in the assembly cheered, though some opposed. He says that the assembly passed this new proposal, and now women are in control.
After a while, Praxagora gets back, and Blepyrus asks her where she went and why she took his clothes. She says she went to help a friend in childbirth and took his clothes because it was cold in the morning. Blepyrus tells her that the state has been handed over to women to govern. She acts surprised and says that it is a lucky thing to happen, and the state will benefit a lot from it. They get talking, and Praxagora lays out a plan for a Utopia of peace and prosperity.
Property
All property will be held in common - “All shall be equal, and equally share all wealth and enjoyments”
Money will become obsolete as necessities are freely provided. Women will manage the communal resources “like housekeepers”.
All private establishments will be “fused into one”.
Work and Food
Farm work will be done by slaves. Clothes will be provided from common stores.
Everyone will dine together at public feasts.
Family
No more marriage. Anyone can be with anyone, but preference should be given to the old and the ugly so that they are not left behind.
Children will not know who their real parents are and will be raised communally. All older citizens will be considered parents of all younger citizens. No more elder abuse.
Law and Order
No more court cases or theft since everything is partially owned by everyone. Courts will become banquet halls.
People who don’t contribute to the community or assault others will be punished by food deprivation.
When people hear about the new laws, many are happy and contribute to the common fund. Some, like the skeptical citizen, refuse to hand over their possessions and think others are foolish to do so. The citizen decides to attend the common feast and enjoy the food, but not give anything in return. The scene then shifts to a young man who wants to be with a young woman he likes, and when he meets her, he is stopped by an old woman saying that he has to sleep with her first before he can go to the young woman. Then another hag comes in and claims that he has to sleep with her. The young man is horrified, and before he could react, another old woman comes and claims him as her legal right. The play then shifts to the communal banquet, where everyone is celebrating and dancing. It ends here, suggesting that while some are enjoying the new system, others are getting victimized.
My Thoughts
Communism is not a new idea of the 19th century
The Ecclesiazusae (The Assembly Women) is a deeply thought-provoking play, and many aspects of it are relevant today as they were 2500 years ago. In many ways, Aristophanes was astonishingly prescient. He predicted the folly of communism way before it became a thing, before Marx, before the Russian Revolution, or Mao’s Great Leap Forward. In the play, women, after being fed up with relentless wars and years of mismanagement, take over Athens by stealthily entering the assembly dressed up as men and voting for the government to change. The women implement a radical communist system with all property held in common, meals shared publicly, everyone being treated equally, etc. The hilarious scenes in the play show how some people use the new laws to their advantage. The takeaway is that attempts to forcefully implement fairness almost always end up creating new forms of injustice.
Why do Utopias fall?
It is not about how idealistic systems fail; history has established that they can fail in so many ways, but why they fail. The unpredictability of human nature - our desire to circumvent systems, selfishness, greed, etc.- thwart even the most well-designed plans that we create. I’m reminded of Yuval Harari’s Nexus, which gives multiple examples of how millions of people died in Russia and China in the process of making the society more equal. The road to utopia is often paved with good intentions, but those cobblestones frequently become tombstones (Similar to saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions). You sacrifice the present for a grand vision of the future that, with time, does not materialize. So you lose twice.
The danger of utilitarianism is that if you have a strong enough belief in a future utopia, it can become an open license to inflict terrible suffering in the present.
~ Harari, Yuval Noah. Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI (p. 284). Kindle Edition.
The free rider problem
Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ talks about the dangers of implementing the “everyone contributes according their abilities, but are rewarded based on their needs” philosophy. This leads people to work less so that they don’t feel cheated. Many people act like the citizen in the play - get the benefits of the community without contributing to the community and this eventually leads the community to fail.
Why then, do people yearn for Utopias again and again?
The yearning for communism often comes up in deeply hierarchical societies and in places where common people have no way to rise above their levels. Time and again, as humans build complex societies, inequality rises, and when it becomes extreme, social order changes in a violent way. People then try to find order in the chaos and set up a new system, which again slides down the path of injustice in due time. Of all systems that people have created, systems that have been very strict about imposing morality or equality, like some religions, have slid into totalitarianism faster than others. In a system where there is no leeway to make a mistake and punishment is severe, autocracy is the only answer, and that causes large-scale human suffering. Of all animals in the known world, humans are probably the only ones who have a deep desire to do good and be good, yearn for Utopia in this world or the world to come after their death, and would do anything to make that happen.
Is it easy to subvert democracy?
In the play, democracy is easily subverted when a group of people decides to overthrow the status quo. Can that happen today? Since information is easily accessible to people through the Internet, it seems easier to overtly and subtly manipulate people to revolt and bring about changes that might be harmful to society in the long run. Autocrats cite this as an example of why democracy is chaotic and one needs a core set of people to govern for long periods of time to ensure consistency and order. However, the key issue is the lack of self-correcting mechanisms in autocracies/dictatorships. Here is another quote from Nexus:
To summarize, a dictatorship is a centralized information network, lacking strong self-correcting mechanisms. A democracy, in contrast, is a distributed information network, possessing strong self-correcting mechanisms.
~ Harari, Yuval Noah. Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI (p. 119). Kindle Edition.
What next?
Our world is still debating the proper balance between collective good and individual rights, between regulation and liberty. I guess as technology evolves, this debate will always continue. The play doesn’t offer any answers. Though it calls out the flaws, it ends with a celebration, indicating that it is ‘feasting and joy’ for some people but not so for others. Perhaps the message is that we need to be humble about any societal order we build, knowing that humans will fail in many different ways and have ways to give second chances instead of being brutal about doing things in one way.
—
Sorry for the long gap between the last newsletter and this. April was extremely busy and now I feel like I have my routine back. Hope to write more regularly in the coming weeks.
—
AI Response to the Post (Gemini)
Expanding on Communism as an Idealistic Philosophy
You’ve astutely pointed out the inherent idealism in communist principles and the practical challenges of their implementation. Let’s expand on why this disconnect often occurs:
At its core, communism, as envisioned in its most utopian form, seeks to eliminate the inequalities and suffering caused by private ownership and the capitalist drive for profit. The idea of a society where resources are shared, everyone’s needs are met, and labor contributes to the common good is undeniably appealing on a theoretical level. It speaks to a fundamental human desire for fairness and mutual support. Imagine a world without poverty, where everyone has access to education, healthcare, and the means to live a dignified life. This is the powerful vision that fuels communist ideals.
However, the translation of this beautiful vision into reality often stumbles upon the complexities of human nature and the practicalities of large-scale social organization. As you mentioned, factors like self-interest, the desire for personal gain, and the tendency to exploit systems for individual advantage become significant obstacles.
The Erosion of Incentive: In a system where rewards are not directly linked to individual effort, the motivation to work diligently and innovate can diminish. Why strive for excellence if the benefits are distributed equally regardless of contribution? This can lead to decreased productivity and overall stagnation.
The Challenge of Centralized Control: Implementing a truly communist system necessitates a high degree of centralized control over resources and production. This concentration of power can become susceptible to corruption, inefficiency, and the suppression of individual freedoms. The very structure designed to ensure equality can inadvertently create new hierarchies and forms of oppression.
The Suppression of Individuality: While aiming for collective well-being, some interpretations of communism can inadvertently stifle individual expression, creativity, and the pursuit of personal goals that might not align perfectly with the collective. This can lead to a sense of alienation and a lack of personal fulfillment.
The Difficulty of Perfect Distribution: Determining and implementing a system of “equal share” is incredibly complex. What constitutes “need”? How do you account for varying skills, efforts, and circumstances? Any attempt to create a rigid system of distribution is likely to face challenges and generate dissatisfaction.
Aristophanes, through the satirical lens of “The Ecclesiazusae,” brilliantly highlights these practical pitfalls. The absurdity of the old women demanding sexual priority and the skeptical citizen exploiting the communal feast showcases how self-interest and the subversion of intended fairness can quickly unravel even the most well-intentioned utopian schemes. The play suggests that human nature, with its inherent mix of altruism and self-interest, poses a fundamental challenge to the successful implementation of pure communist ideals.
Deeper Analysis of Themes and Symbolism
Beyond the critique of communism, “The Ecclesiazusae” delves into several other fascinating themes and employs subtle symbolism:
The Role and Power of Women: While the play’s premise is fantastical, it raises questions about the traditional roles of women in Athenian society and their potential for governance. Praxagora argues that women’s domestic skills – management, resource allocation, and caregiving – could translate effectively to the political sphere. The play, in its humorous way, prompts reflection on whether the exclusion of women from political life was a loss for the city. The women’s initial awkwardness in adopting male attire and speech also highlights the societal constraints placed upon them.
The Nature of Political Change and Revolution: The play depicts a swift and somewhat comical revolution. The women’s success relies on deception and exploiting the weaknesses of the existing democratic system. This raises questions about the methods of political change, the ease with which established orders can be overturned, and the potential for unintended consequences, even when the initial motivations are noble. The speed and ease of the transition in the play serve as a satirical commentary on the potential instability of political systems.
The Blurring of Social Norms and Gender Roles: The new communal system proposed by Praxagora challenges fundamental Athenian social structures, particularly regarding family, property, and gender roles. The abolition of private property and traditional marriage strikes at the heart of the Athenian social order. The forced sexual prioritization of the elderly and less attractive women is a particularly absurd and unsettling element that underscores the potential for unintended and undesirable social consequences when radical social engineering is attempted. This upending of norms serves to highlight the potential chaos and discomfort that can accompany radical societal shifts.
The Ideal Versus the Real: The entire play operates on the tension between Praxagora’s idealistic vision of a utopian society and the messy, often selfish, realities of human behavior. The rapid descent into the absurd, particularly with the sexual regulations, underscores the difficulty of imposing a perfectly rational and equitable system onto an inherently irrational and self-interested populace. The play suggests that utopian ideals, while perhaps inspiring, often fail to account for the complexities of human nature.
The Symbolism of Clothing and Disguise: The play opens with the women in disguise, highlighting the theme of deception as a means to achieve political power. The act of women wearing men’s clothes symbolizes a temporary inversion of the social order and underscores their need to adopt male characteristics to be taken seriously in the political sphere. Blepyrus’s subsequent wearing of his wife’s clothes further blurs gender lines and adds to the comedic chaos, perhaps symbolizing the confusion and upheaval of the new social order. The clothing acts as a visual representation of the shifting power dynamics and the disruption of traditional roles.
The Significance of the Feast: The play concludes with a communal banquet, which is meant to symbolize the unity and shared resources of the new society. However, the presence of the skeptical citizen, who benefits without contributing, and the earlier chaotic scenes with the old women suggest that this unity is superficial and that underlying tensions and inequalities persist. The feast, therefore, becomes a potentially ironic symbol of the flawed utopia – outwardly celebratory but inwardly problematic.
Thought-Provoking Questions for Modern Readers
“The Ecclesiazusae” continues to resonate with contemporary audiences by raising questions that remain relevant in our own societies:
What is the ideal balance between individual liberty and collective well-being? How do we create social systems that promote both individual flourishing and the common good without sacrificing one for the other?
How susceptible are democratic systems to manipulation and subversion? What safeguards are necessary to protect democratic institutions from those who seek to undermine them, regardless of their motivations?
To what extent can social engineering truly address fundamental societal problems? What are the limits of top-down approaches to creating a better society, and what role does individual agency and organic social change play?
How do our inherent human tendencies – both altruistic and self-serving – shape the success or failure of different political and economic systems? Can any system perfectly account for the complexities of human nature?
What are the unintended consequences of radical social change, even when driven by noble intentions? How can we better anticipate and mitigate the potential negative outcomes of large-scale societal transformations?