You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The first thorough exposition of the connection between the constitution of a body politic and the character of the individual citizen was made by Plato in the Republic. In paragraphs that still astound the reader for their depth and ingenuity, Plato anticipated the theories of Freud and outlined a comprehensive account of the interdependence of the policy-making institutions of society and the institutions by which individual character is given its special stamp. The essential insight can be formulated in the hypothesis that the stability of the constitution depends upon the moulding of the appropriate form of character (or personality). It was recognized that these factors were part of a larger equilibrium which involves many other elements. But the specific point is that personality is a significant feature of constitutional stability. To some extent the stability of public order fosters the appearance of uniform types of personality that harmonize with the regime; and conversely, the emergence of a new form of personality facilitates the eventual modification of the system of public authority and control.
Plato was not confusing public order with public calm, and asserting that the latter is an essential condition of stability in the adjustment of character and constitution. He specifically said that wars are necessary for the perpetuation of some constitutional arrangements, since without the challenge of war an elite based upon arms is likely to disintegrate. More generally, every political system brings into prominence a cluster of skills that must be put to use with enough frequency to sustain the system of training and award that preserves the relevant skill and protects it from deterioration. In this sense an appropriate crisis (or challenge) is an essential characteristic of the equilibrium presupposed by any constitution.