Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato’s Dialogues By Rebecca LeMoine A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2014 Date of final oral examination: 06/20/2014 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Richard Avramenko, Associate Professor, Political Science Alex Dressler, Assistant Professor, Classics Daniel Kapust, Associate Professor, Political Science Helen Kinsella, Associate Professor, Political Science John Zumbrunnen, Professor, Political Science i ABSTRACT The place of foreigners in Plato’s thought remains understudied despite the prevalence of foreign characters, myths, and practices throughout his dialogues. Attending to this gap in the scholarly literature, this dissertation challenges conventional depictions of Plato as hostile to diversity by showing that Plato makes a compelling case for why we should engage with foreigners: the epistemological benefits of cross-cultural engagement. Through exegetical readings of the Republic, Laws, Phaedrus, and Menexenus, I argue that Plato finds cross-cultural dialogue epistemologically beneficial owing to its ability to provoke us to philosophize together, an activity at once conducive to the quest for wisdom and generative of friendship. Put simply, conversations with foreigners perform the same role as the Socratic gadfly of stinging us into consciousness. This finding has major implications for the field of political theory and, specifically, for the role of the new subfield commonly referred to as comparative political theory. By demonstrating the centrality of cross-cultural dialogue to Plato’s conception of political theory, this dissertation suggests that comparative political theory is not a deviation from the tradition of Western political theory, but a restoration of it. As such, reinvigorating the practice of political theory as a comparative enterprise may be more crucial than most political theorists think. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No work is solely the product of one person’s efforts. I am grateful to have been blessed with numerous sources of support for this dissertation. I would first like to acknowledge my dissertation advisor, Richard Avramenko, whose diligent readings (and re-readings) of every chapter of this dissertation have improved it beyond explanation. His patience as I worked through my ideas and his good sense of humor in dealing with an admittedly stubborn, rebellious person warrants the highest commendations. This dissertation has also been improved significantly thanks to conversations and courses with the other committee members. The idea for the dissertation was born from a paper written for John Zumbrunnen’s memorable graduate seminar in ancient political thought. It was further shaped by countless insightful conversations with Daniel Kapust (who I am not trying to flatter). To Alex Dressler, I owe a debt of gratitude for helping me learn Ancient Greek, and making it fun. Finally, I thank Helen Kinsella, without whom I would know next to nothing about international relations theory. In addition to the support of my committee, I also received feedback and inspiration from various other interlocutors. A footnote in Jill Frank’s essay on judgment in Plato’s Republic led me to turn an interest in the treatment of foreigners in Plato’s dialogues into a dissertation, and her encouragement along the way helped me achieve this dream. In Arlene Saxonhouse I found a role model and friend, and I am eternally grateful for the times she met to discuss the project with me. Conversations with Stephen Salkever, Thornton Lockwood, and Catherine Zuckert further helped to hone my thinking. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Susan Bickford, Joel Schlosser, Shawn Welnak, Andreas Avgousti, Edward Gimbel, Nalin Ranasinghe, Michael Gibbons, Andy R. German, Stefan Dolgert, Robert G. Howard, Katherine Robiadek, and Samantha Vortherms, who all provided formal feedback on individual chapters or parts of the iii dissertation. Finally, no words can express my undying gratitude to my undergraduate advisor and lifelong mentor, Eduardo Velásquez, but I hope he accepts just one: Namaste. In addition to the intellectual guidance and inspiration of the individuals acknowledged above, I benefitted from various sources of institutional support. In this vein, I would like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which provided me not only with unparalleled resources but also financial assistance in the form of lectureships, teaching assistantships, and funding for conference travel. I am grateful as well to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the State of Wisconsin for their generous support through a Mellon-Wisconsin Summer Fellowship. Additionally, my participation in a Mellon-Wisconsin Writing Camp contributed greatly to the successful completion of this dissertation. Lastly, I would like to thank the Mid-South Alumni Association at Washington and Lee University for helping me get here in the first place. Last but not least, this dissertation could not have been completed without the enduring and remarkable support of numerous family members and friends. In particular, I would like to thank my significant other Matthew Taylor for putting up with me and for reading through various drafts, many of which no doubt resembled some of his chemistry experiments gone awry. Nor would I have made it here without the unconditional love and support of my parents—Linda and Gary Henson, and Samuel and Emily LeMoine. When times were tough, it was the voice of my mother telling me I could do it that helped me persevere. I consider myself fortunate, too, for the professional and moral support of my colleagues and friends (you know who you are) and for the teachers along the way who inspired in me a love of learning, especially Natalie Parker- Lawrence. In closing, I feel blessed to have worked on this project with the help of so many brilliant yet down to earth people. This dissertation is stronger because of all of them. The remaining weaknesses are entirely my own. iv DEDICATION To my Pa (1945-2011), who showed me the value of compassion towards others and oneself— “I sure could use a hug” v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................................... i! Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ii! Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... iv! Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v! Chapter 1: The Ancient Roots of Comparative Political Theory............................................. 1! I. Historical Context and Concepts............................................................................................. 8! 1.1: Xenoi and Barbaroi ......................................................................................................... 8! 1.2: Greek Relations with Foreigners: Complex Ethnocentrism.......................................... 15! II. Plato and Foreigners............................................................................................................. 25! III. Methodology and Chapter Overview.................................................................................. 33! 3.1: Method of Interpretation ............................................................................................... 40! 3.2: Dialogue Selection and Order....................................................................................... 45! Chapter 2: The Benefits of Engaging Foreigners (The Republic)........................................... 51! I. Beginning with Foreigners .................................................................................................... 56! 1.1: Socrates’ Visit to the Piraeus ........................................................................................ 56! 1.2: A Conversation on Interpolity Justice ........................................................................... 60! II. Plato’s Vision of the World: Defying the Greek – Barbarian Division ............................... 67! 2.1: The Root of Interpolity Political Realism in Pleonexia ................................................. 67! 2.2: A World of Caves........................................................................................................... 73! III. Democracy: Cave of Caves................................................................................................. 80! IV. Kallipolis’ Cave and Plato’s True City............................................................................... 84! V. The Multicultural Music of Dialectic .................................................................................. 97! 5.1: Harmony: The Bringing Together of Diverse Notes ..................................................... 99! 5.2: Kallipolis’ Multicultural Music ................................................................................... 106! VI. Leaving the Cave: The Benefits of Democracy................................................................ 118! Chapter 3: The Dangers of Excluding Foreigners (The Laws) ............................................