1G0xxeB

Happy City, Happy Citizens? The Common Good and the Private Good in Plato’s Republic2 0 7for the happiness of the parts of a city and of the whole. Since, “without a city,most of the (would-be) citizens will not be happy,” and since each part of thecity must perform its proper function in order for the whole city to subsist,it follows the citizens are, on the whole, best off when given a happiness consistentwith their civic function because only such a happiness “endures andmeets lifelong human needs.” 13 Hence, each part of the city will be a happypart and as a result the whole which is composed of those parts will be happy.This reading does not fit the text, however. 14 To repeat, Socrates does notsay that a black eye is beautifully colored; he says it is “suitably” colored—which, in the context, can be most naturally understood as being colored inthe way that makes it resemble a real eye, or the real eye of a beautiful, realanimal (see 420c–d). Kamtekar appears to read into this passage the notionthat suitably colored parts are also beautiful parts. Socrates does not say that,however—though he could have if that had been his intention. In addition,reading the passage in the holistic way (beautiful whole from suitably coloredparts) coheres better with Socrates’s subsequent statement that their purposeis to give to parts of the city the way of life or conditions of happiness thatmake them “the best possible craftsmen at their jobs” (421c). Just as a beautifulwhole comes from suitably colored parts, a happy whole comes from suitablyformed classes. The rulers look to the proper functioning of the citizens,while nature distributes happiness (421c). Thus, the holistic interpretation fitsbetter with the analogy, whereas Kamtekar’s interpretation introduces disanalogies.The statue analogy therefore lends itself to a holistic interpretation.The second support for the holistic interpretation of the city’s happinessis Socrates’s previously mentioned statement that they will leave it to natureto distribute happiness (421c), which implies that the rulers will not directlyconcern themselves with the happiness of individual citizens or groups of citizens,but only with the quality of their civic functioning. Nor does Socratesaffirmatively declare that nature will make each class as happy as it can bewhen they are properly civically formed. He does not say what quality ordegree of happiness nature will distribute. Perhaps the greatest support forholism in this passage is that Socrates speaks here as though it is possible tomake a city happy as a whole without being directly concerned with the happinessof the parts, which suggests that the happiness of the city is somethingother than and even independent of the happiness of the citizenry.13Ibid., 208.14See Morrison, “Happiness,” 13–14, for an argument similar to mine.