Plato's Republic and Hobbes Leviathan and Elizabeth Anderson - Essay Example

Plato's Republic and Hobbes Leviathan and Elizabeth Anderson Features of a Responsive Education Anderson identifies four major features of a responsive education. The first one is that a responsive education possesses consciousness of the interests and troubles of individuals from every sectors of the society. She argues that responsive education does not practice spatial segregation, but instead it facilities the advantaged groups to offer knowledge through public education goods, social capital, and cultural capital (Anderson, 596). This is not just imparted between the elites, but also to the disadvantaged groups in equal measure. Secondly, a disposition to handle every of the society interests, thus, a responsive education should impart in the elite the awareness of the tribulations of those they are supposed to be helping. This involves providing them with analytical skills, such that they are able to perform individuals’ interpretations and reactions to what they perceive as the meanings of diverse actions plus events, or first-person attitude. This requires that the elites should not be segregated from the disadvantaged. Hence, a responsive education ensures that they acquire the social capital, or personal acquaintance with the disadvantaged, so as to obtain propositional knowledge of the problems (Anderson, 600). Thirdly, responsive education possesses technical knowledge regarding how to press forwards society interests effectively. A responsive education does not just provide academic knowledge, but also technical knowledge on social capital, such as language, manners, forms of communication, body language, as well as other understated cultural habits. It entails taking up individual perspective about every group in a society and viewing information from their standpoint. Lastly, a responsive education gives competence for courteous interaction with individuals from all sectors of society. This entails communicative competence and familiarity with the other cultural norms. According to Anderson, a respectful interaction entails effective services which are fundamental in eliciting information concerning the welfare of clients, consumers, and its constituents (602). This entails engaging their collaboration in effecting resolutions to their problems. Accordingly, an educational system which is fitting a democratic society ensures that there is cultivation of all of the four qualifications by its elite (Anderson, 621). How those features produce leaders more able to fulfill their obligation The four features of responsive education produce leaders who more able to fulfill their obligations, since they acquire qualifications that enable them to be receptive and effective when it comes to the interests of all people from every sector of the society (Anderson, 615). The leaders do not only acquire academic knowledge, but technical knowledge which makes them salient, emotionally betrothed, and consistently entrenched in order to block biases and unconscious stereotypes. The leaders possess awareness, receptiveness, and practical acquaintance, together with competence for courteous intergroup interaction. Such leaders are able to create rapport across group-divisions, and to connect in first and second person viewpoint, by drawing upon individual knowledge regarding life, but in a disadvantageous position. Furthermore, a responsive education creates leaders who imaginatively project their self into other people shoes, through effective communicative proficiency and rapport, even as they hold themselves answerable to how others act in response to and makes claims about their own conduct (Anderson, 618). Through social integration, the leaders are able to draw their authority and normative strength from the moral eminence of their subjects, instead of impersonal value of business as usual. Responsive education offers a motivational path to personal identification and charity, and this makes it more likely for the leaders to identify with the disadvantaged group and be motivated to help them. As such, socially integrated leaders, who are educated on conditions of equality under institutionalized hold up for intergroup collaboration, will not be prone to prejudicial cognitive predispositions. Thus, leaders are not just socially integrated, but they are able to incorporate diversity in itself, and in social interactions between all members of society (Anderson, 620). Obligations of Plato, Hobbes in Leadership Positions Plato considers the obligations of a leader as the one who questions everything, and who put into effect common sense, rather than personal gain (Craig, 17). For Plato, leadership values are eternal characters which are to be seized by the intellects, and the ideal leader is one who discerns what integrity is, since the conclusion of any institution of power or authority is to advance the good. Thus, Plato considers that leaders apply moral authority so that the subjects below them can follow them. To Plato, a leader is an individual who sacrifices his or her direct self-interests, and the goal is to guide and oversee the ambitions, missions as well as aspirations of the grouping, organizations, or even causes. Leaders are also guided by wisdom, and their duty is to make decisions which are not stalled by the inadequacies which arise from being a human being. On the other hand, Hobbes argues that since society is composed of diverse people having conflicting interests and views concerning what are right or wrong, then the role of a leader is to act as an arbitrator of such conflicts (Craig,18). Hobbes as a supporter of absolutism argued that the obligation of a leader is to act as the legitimate power and be representative of people consents. The leader through a social contract acts as absolute representative for the good of society. For Hobbes, an ideal leader has absolute power and his or her conclusions are prudential. Their role is to preserve social order, peace and natural freedom through the rule of law. Hence, Hobbes argues that it is right for leaders to abuse their power for the sake of peace. According to Hobbes, leaders should seek to protect their group from their personal selfishness, since people are motivated by self interest (Craig,18). Both Hobbes and Plato believed that leadership obligations entail looking after the interests of others. However, Hobbes emphasizes absolute exercise of power, while Plato emphasizes leadership being enforced due to enlightened self-interest, instead of altruistic motives. Whether Plato and Hobbes would agree with Anderson’s understanding of the obligations of leadership Hobbes would not agree with Anderson understanding of the obligations of leadership, since unlike Anderson, Hobbes believes that individuals are not always absolutely and totally briefed or informed, and as such dishonesty is rife. Thus, to Hobbes, leaders do not necessarily need the consent of everybody they govern, but only the assent of those having enough resources plus leverage (Craig, 18). On the contrary, Anderson believes that the elites should be individuals who are responsive to every person, and they need to have personally experienced the society problems, or having social networks comprising such individuals, in order to be responsive to their needs (Anderson, 603). Anderson role of leadership goes in line with Hobbes view that, in the end, it becomes essential for the elite to contemplate on the issues affecting the weak groups, such as education, impoverishment or economic status. However, Anderson contradicts Hobbes segregation in educating and constituting leaders, by saying that leaders need to be equally constituted from every facet of the state, such that they effectively serve every sectors of society. Plato view on leadership obligations nears Anderson view, however Plato view is too optimistic, more of an ideal world, and incredibly difficult to attain since existing disparities will always imply that there would be an elite who will have the privilege to rule (Craig, 17).  However, both Anderson and Plato seem to converge, when they argue that a leader should determine what every individual in the society needs or is apt at, and then nurture every person in accordance to what they judge is best for them. Need For a Proper Education for Those Leaders When it comes to proper education for the leaders, Plato encourages a society where individuals are educated towards doing whatsoever they are greatest at, while an elite comprising wisest philosopher are left to rule and guide the society. This contradicts Anderson view on elite education, since she emphasizes educational worth of diversity that is not just found in academic knowledge, but also through understanding of personal knowledge, especially of others through direct dealing with their first plus second person claims (Anderson, 603). Both concur that education should not be based on segregation or group stereotypes in creating knowledge, because all individuals have equal capacity. On the other hand, Hobbes just like Anderson believes that it is the duty of the elite to educate others. However, Hobbes believes that education of the leaders is not just trained, but that they acquire knowledge through true ratiocination, or otherwise apparent effects (Craig, 18). This contradicts Anderson view, which states that the elite should be educated on forms of social and cultural capital, and that education of the elite should not be just from certain group, but from all sectors of the society, including the lesser-advantaged. To Hobbes, education of the elite is based on primary propositions, as well as clear imperatives. Conversely, Anderson considers that democratically educated elite is incorporated across all key lines of social inequality plus division. Even though Hobbes contradicts them by asserting that inequalities can be an acceptable outcome and that leaders should not be thoroughly responsive to the interests of others if it affects existing political organization and order. All in all, the three of them do agree that a good education should enable individuals who are educated to pass it on to everyone else. Works Cited Anderson, Elizabeth. "Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective." Ethics 117 (2007): 595–622. Craig, Leon Harold. The Platonian Leviathan. University of Toronto Press, 2010. Read More