After reading and discussing The Ballot or the Bullet by Malcolm X for Monday and Plato’s Crito for Wednesday, I noticed a stark difference in the philosophies portrayed in these two readings. This made me wonder what each philosopher, Malcolm X and Socrates, would think of the other.
Both of the pieces come from the perspective of someone who has been wronged or oppressed by their government, which in each case is a democratic government, but come to contrasting conclusions. Malcolm X and his intended audience, other African-Americans living in the United States in 1964, was a victim of fierce discrimination and racism both by fellow Americans and the government. He saw generations of African-Americans be treated unconstitutionally and unfairly. Not only this, but he saw them fight for change only to be manipulated and tricked. All of this frustration is poured into his speech The Ballot or the Bullet where he proclaims that if no real change occurs because of “ballots” or freedom, then they have the right to use violence to right the wrongs that have occurred. So while Malcolm X is not necessarily advocating violence against those use have wronged him, he does recognize that it may be the only alternative.
“If you don't take an uncompromising stand, I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don't die alone. Let your dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality.” --Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet
Contrasting Malcolm X’s acceptance of violence is Socrates. Socrates has been wrongly convicted to death by his country and sits in jail awaiting his sentencing. However, when Socrates is given the chance to escape his death sentence, he refuses. Socrates expresses that it is wrong to do evil to someone even if they have done evil to you. He states that the only right thing to do in his situation is change the court’s opinion or die.
“Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.” --Plato, Crito
These two philosophers express starkly different opinions on what kind of response is legitimate to oppression or wrongs, so what would they think of each other? I wonder if Socrates would understand Malcolm X’s situation and desperation. And I also wonder if Malcolm X would understand that Socrates will die a martyr.
I'm trying to think of a way that Socrates would approve of Malcolm X's methods, and I think he could. Perhaps he could agree on the grounds that Socrates' own death was the death of one person, but Malcolm X was talking about an issue and a plan of action that affected an entire segment of the population, therefore it approached a more certain degree of rightness than Socrates' own escape ever would. Another way of looking at it could be that by using Malcolm X's method of trying to attain human rights, he's proposing a method that would help African Americans gain a voice in politics and society. This would create a more varied chorus of voices that would add more opinions, make society question some of its tenets due to these opinions, and society would start to approach something that somewhat resembles the Socratic Method.
ReplyDeletePossible a bit of a stretch, but then again Socrates would question anything and everything, so I don't know if he would truly agree with any method.
I think this a very interesting comparison and you did a good job in your post. However, I think that there is another crucial difference between there circumstances. In Crito, Socractes makes the point that the state is responsible for both his education and his upbringing, and therefore, it would be wrong of him to turn against them now. However, Malcolm X and the rest of the African American community had never received the rights that they were supposed to be entitled too. Therefore, Malcolm X and his peers had consistently been deprived by the State whereas Socrates' death sentence is one instance. In Malcolm X's context, the state was the entity defying their own laws, unlike in Crito.
ReplyDeleteYour post made me wonder: How would Socrates advocate for social change? Would this require ending the terms of the contract between citizen and state before trying to change it? Would you have to protest in exile? It's hard to tell after reading Socrates' dialogue with Crito and gets especially tricky when considering that the philosopher does not support democracy. He might say that questions of social change should be left to the intellectual elite, which would be an obstacle for almost any civil rights movement. I think for Socrates the answer is not in either the ballet or the bullet but in persuasion. Of course, it is hard to persuade those who constrain your rights into granting them to you the oppressors, such as slave owners, benefit from your repression. Perhaps Socrates would re-examine his ideas about democracy and citizen involvement in social change if he were alive today.
ReplyDeleteI like this analysis a lot. Malcolm X and Socrates seem to be very similar in their motives, but entirely different in their actions. Both question the natural order of the state and its actions, but Malcolm X takes it to the extreme that Socrates sought so desperately to avoid. Where both seem to be philosopher in their own right, Malcolm X is of the more active sort. While Socrates was willing to be put to death for his thoughts in order to more exemplify his message, Malcolm X is not willing to die peacefully. If it comes to it, Malcolm X is willing to do what Socrates never dreamed of in order to better the way of things. Malcolm X condones violence in order to send a message, if the message cannot be sent peacefully and in this, I see the main difference between him and Socrates. I definitely have to agree with your post and like the comparison.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, these two figures seem to be polar opposites; however, upon closer inspection, Malcolm X and Socrates share a few things in common. Both faced wrongful accusations and criticism and both have made lasting impressions on society. I think it would be interesting to throw in a comparison between these two and the Albanian blood feuds under the Kanun, in which murder is justified as long as it is to avenge the death of a family member or loved one. While I think Malcolm X would be more in favor of this than Socrates, it borders on the extreme. In the Kanun, if you cannot avenge the death of a loved one by targeting the killer, any blood relative of the killer will suffice (including women and children). Even in the 21st century, there are Albanian societies where the Kanun trumps state law (not legally; only socially) and children are forced to spend their lives inside, in fear of becoming victim to an old blood feud that could have happened years before their time. It is interesting to consider what Malcolm X and Socrates would think of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI do like this comparison and contrast of Malcolm X and Socrates. A key comparison to make is both of these philosophers/political actors operate outside the government they want to change. Malcolm X states he doesn't consider himself American in "The Ballot or the Bullet", and Socrates says he is a gadfly intentionally irritating the horse in "Apology". It would be interesting to compare these two opponents of the government to figures like Gandhi or MLK who work with the government and through nonviolent protest. I think it would be seen that MLK and Gandhi did more for their respective countries than Malcolm X or Socrates did to theirs. The main difference, I believe is that people like Malcolm X and Socrates seek to tear down unjust governments while MLK and Gandhi seek to construct and reform.
ReplyDelete