Socratic Political Theory

Søren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling has traditionally attracted interest from scholars of political theory for its apparent hostility to political philosophy, and more recently for its compatibility with Marxism. This paper argues for a reconsideration of Kierkegaard's potential contributions to political theory by suggesting that the work's shortcomings belong to its pseudonymous author, Johannes de Silentio, and are in fact intended by Kierkegaard. Attentiveness to the literary development of the pseudonym allows us to see a Kierkegaard who is a deeper and more direct critic of Hegel's political philosophy than is usually presumed. By creating a pseudonym whose argument ultimately fails, Kierkegaard employs Socratic irony in order to point readers to the need to recover Socratic political philosophy as the appropriate adjunct to the faith of Abraham, and as an alternative to Hegelian, and post-Hegelian, political thought.

The aim of this essay is to review some aspects of the relationship between rulers and ruled in Plato's Republic, focusing especially on Books II, VIII and IX, and Xenophon's Hiero 1. I consider that this might be an interesting approach, since much has been said about the rulers (in their different forms), whereas the issue of citizens has been less explored 2. I think it is an important concern, since a well organized and happy community-a purpose which is stated in both texts-(e.g., Rep. 420b), unavoidably requires certain compatibility and balance between the constitutions and dispositions of both sides of the relationship. I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that there is no priority of one of these elements of the relation, it would be naïve to deny the primacy of the good ruler. However, it would be equally difficult to ignore the importance of leading a group of citizens towards the same purposes, consistent with the ruler's proposals for his people.