The Imperative Of Segregation Exposed In Elizabeth Anderson's The Republic

Many individuals provide different perspectives on the subject of ideally just society. Throughout the book “The Republic” by Plato, Socrates states descriptions of how a just society must be and how it must be enforced by the individuals living in the society. In addition, Elizabeth Anderson’s book “The Imperative of Segregation,” she provides a different outlook from Socrates perspectives. She describes a society under non-ideal or ideal theory. Furthemore, Elizabeth Anderson believes that people does not necessarily have to understand the concept of an ideal just society in order to make the society better or more just. On the other hand, in response to Anderson’s belief, Socrates may state that knowledge and understanding of the concept

of an ideal just society is crucial to make a society better. Although, both of these philosophers believe in different ideas for a just society, their ideas makes valid points to acknowledge.
In Elizabeth Anderson’s “The Imperative of Segregation,” she provides historical references to introduce her point of how a society should be lived.

She states “The hope of black nationalists and left multiculturalists is that racial equality can be achieved through, or at least notwithstanding, substantial racial segregation.” (Pg. 2) She believes that racial segregation will only bring forth the isolation of certain groups from access to public and private resources such as the hospital, education, or even a place in a nice park. Racial segregation would also reinforce discrimination on black people from the jobs that white people may have that are more competitive. Thus, making it harder for them to excel on their abilities. Furthermore, she states that “segregation also undermines democracy.” (Pg. 2) In a democratic society, one has the privilege to a just and equal freedom like everyone else. Furthermore, Anderson states that integration is an “imperative of justice.. It is also a positive good.” (Pg. 2) Integration would bring positive feedbacks socially, economically and the overall well-being of a society will be boosted. In contrast, Socrates makes a valid point on creating a society under different

classes.
In Plato’s “The Republic,” Socrates indicates a system of different classes in a society. He states that in an ideal city, different classes comprising of the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers must be enforced to ensure productiveness. The first class, which are the guardians, they serve as the philosophers of the city who governs the people and make deals with other states. The second class, the auxiliaries, are the soldiers who defend the city in times of war. The last class, the producers, are the farmers and the businessmen who provides food and resources to everyone in the city. Although each class has its own role, each of them are deprived of the other roles from the other classes. For example, as a guardian, one will be seen as the highness, meaning that one will be able to be treated as an important person receiving privileges to many things. However, as a producer, you will not be able to receive the same privileges as what the guardians have as producers are not meant to “rule” the city. They are meant to produce for the city. This idea by socrates can be contrasted to Elizabeth Anderson’s idea that segregation would only bring forth discrimination in a certain group in a society. Continuing to Anderson’s claim, she introduces non-ideal and ideal theory in a society.
Elizabeth Anderson states that a society does not necessarily have to understand the concept of an ideal to be a better or just society.

Firstly, she states “Nonideal theory is usually regarded as derivative of ideal theory. Don’t we first need to know what an ideally just society would be, to identify the ways our current society falls short? Shouldn’t the principles for an ideal society be settled first, so that we can work out how to get there from here?” (Pg. 3) She provides these questions to indicate ways of how individuals would normally think about how societies can be better. However, Anderson states that these questions of ideas are not preferable in order to make a society better or more just. This idea of acknowledging the ideals of how to make a society better is not reflective to the reality of how individuals live their lives in a society. She adds “We are not jarred into critical thinking about our conduct until we confront a problem that stops us from carrying on unreflectively. We recognize the existence of a problem before we have any idea of what would be the best or more just.” (Pg. 3) The idea that individuals usually think about the solutions of a problem before even thinking about ways to make a society better before problems arise is seemed to be unreliable according to Anderson. Furthermore, she states “Nor do we need to know what is ideal in order to improve. Knowledge of the better does not require knowledge of the best.” (Pg. 3) Finally,

she states her claim that knowing the ideal theory does not necessarily make a society better. It is not the ideas of making a society better that makes it better, it is the capabilities of individuals to avoid problems and conflicts before it even occurs is what makes a society just and better. Interpreting injustices and situations in real actual world rather than in an ideal theory should be put into action as it provides realistic solutions to realistic situations. She also indicates that “taking people ‘as they are and laws as they might be’,” brings realistic solutions to any conflict in the actual world. This ideal brings just to society as individuals are being recognized as who they truly are. However, on the other hand, Socrates may disagree with Anderson’s claim that one does not know the ideals of a just society for the society to be just.
In Plato’s “The Republic,” Socrates brings to play the story of the Allegory of the Cave. In this story, prisoners were imprisoned in a cave and was only exposed to the cave throughout their lives. When one prisoner was freed and was able to leave the cave, he was shocked with the things he had seen outside. He saw the sun that brings light, trees, mountains and many other beautiful things. Pleased by his discovery, he went back to the cave to tell the other prisoners of what he had discovered. Unfortunately, the other prisoners did not believe him and believed that he was crazy for making illusions. Socrates relates to this story as he believes that in order to have real knowledge, one must be exposed through his senses. Knowledge of the ideal world outside the cave will bring forth a better and just city. It can also be inferred that ignorance from the knowledge of how to make a society better will bring forth failure of being open minded to the ideas of a better city. He believes that knowledge of the ideals of a better city is crucial to creating a city just as it gives a guideline to the ideal world. Although, Socrates and Anderson provide different perspectives, their ideas are still worth taking.
Elizabeth Anderson believes that knowledge of an ideal society is not necessary to make a society better or more just. She backs her ideas up by stating that people most certainly overthink of solutions to conflicts which creates a bigger problem. She believes that taking conflicts as they are and not overthinking about it is better as she states “taking people’ as they are and laws as they might be’.”( Pg. 3) This brings simplicity to the situations that may arise in a society. On the other hand, Socrates believes that knowledge to how an ideal society works is crucial to a more better and just society. He mentions the story of the Allegory of the Cave to indicate that knowledge is power. And when one has the knowledge of power, he automatically makes a city better and more just. These ideas brought by Anderson and Socrates provides two different perspectives on how societies can be lived in their own ideal worlds.