Paulino 1

*Lights, camera, action* Socrates, More, and Hythloday take a seat on set to film the next
episode of their late night talk show that is humbly named “Late Night With Great Minds.”
Tonight's topic: Hartz’s recent research summary titled “‘Splitting” and Identity Politics.”

MORE: Welcome back, everybody. Today we’ll be focusing on the topic of “splitting” and

“ambivalence,” a sharp turn from last night's episode where we discussed Socrates’ favorite ice

cream flavor for half the show.

SOCRATES: It wasn’t about the flavor; it was about the overall concept of “Bernie’s Yearning.”

Don’t you find it interesting that a political opinion can be represented so accurately in just a pint

of ice cream? That Ben Cohen was able to create, quite literally, a digestible metaphor for such a

complex economic standpoint. The fact that he “cares about the city itself” (Apology 36c) rather

than the “things of the city” (Apology 36c), meant risking his company’s profit, which is one of

the most virtuous things one can do if you ask me.

MORE: Let’s move on before we waste any more time with that topic. . . .

HYTHLODAY: Actually, Thomas, I think you are disregarding the perfect segue that provides

today's discussion. Cohen values his political identity and beliefs more than he does money,

which is something we can all relate to. I find it hypocritical, however, that a man who does not

care about money would take part in a privately owned company that only further emphasizes a

culture where “money is a measure of all things” (Utopia 39). Does he not see that his company

prevents “a commonwealth to be just as prosperous” (Utopia 39) as he is? Does he not see he is

part of the one percent Sanders’ is so aptly fighting against?

MORE: I see. . . .Well, your framing does steer the conversation to Hartz’ discussion of

psychological “splitting.” For the audience, “splitting” describes when an individual views a

controversial topic as black and white or right and wrong, essentially eliminating what would be
 Paulino 2

considered the gray area or the middle ground (Hartz 2), which is what I fear my friend Raphael

is guilty of doing right now. The situation is much more complex than you make it out to be,

Raphael. “People cannot possibly live well where all things are common” (Utopia 41). Who is to

provide Socrates his favorite ice cream in a place where “every man stops working” because

“the hope of gain does not spur him on” (Utopia 41). Although I agree that the wealth

distribution in America is an issue worth debating, I cannot help but feel that you are only

viewing Cohen through this evil capitalist lens you’ve created to directly oppose the helpless

commonwealth you so crave to protect.

HYTHLODAY: But am I wrong for doing so? Capitalism splits the public into two groups, the

rich who are “rapacious, wicked and useless” (Utopia 40), and the poor who are “unassuming,

modest men, whose daily labour benefits the public more than themselves” (Utopia 40). Surely,

Socrates, you agree.

SOCRATES: Whether or not I agree is irrelevant to the point that both Thomas and Hartz are

making.

HYTHLODAY: How can you say such a thing as a person who was once living in

“ten-thousandfold poverty” (Apology 23c)?

SOCRATES: I lived in poverty, but I did so by choice. During a conversation with an old friend,

I made the Athenian Laws speak to us, saying “if we do not satisfy” someone, he is “allowed to

take his own things and go away wherever he wishes” (Crito 51d), much like you did, traveling

the globe all of those years. Those who choose to stay in America choose to live in the

conditions they are given. If they are unhappy, they can leave. And wasn’t it you, Raphael, who

refused to take part in politics because one “cannot remedy the folly of others” (Utopia 39)?
 Paulino 3

HYTHLODAY: Yes, and I followed your lead (Apology, p. 83). But it is unfair for you to

assume that most people have the means to leave as I did.

SOCRATES: So how can you expect Cohen to do exactly what you chose not do? To go about

fixing a system that keeps him dry from the rain (Utopia 39).

HYTHLODAY: Are you comparing me, a mere bystander, to people who knowingly oppress the

commonwealth to benefit themselves?

SOCRATES: No, you are comparing yourself to those who oppress the commonwealth. By

creating a good versus bad outlook on life, you are bifurcating all of humankind. There are no

bystanders. So which group do you believe you fit into? The oppressors or the oppressed?

HYTHLODAY: Certainly not the oppressors, as I am not a king who leaves little to his subjects

to pacify them from potentially fighting back (Utopia 34).

MORE: But you are not the oppressed either. Regarding travels, you did not once speak about

working within a commonwealth. In fact, you were graciously gifted all that you would need

from a gracious prince, and continued to be hosted by other princes during your journey (Utopia

11). So would you not say that, to an extent, you were a beneficiary of the same monarchy you

denounced?

HYTHLODAY: I am unsure.

SOCRATES: Rightfully so. You just stated that you, unlike the commonwealth in America, had

the means to be able to travel. But you also stated that unlike the monarchy, you are not actively

pacifying the commonwealth. So you can see how splitting can be problematic, and how, like

Cohen, you are stuck in this gray area between good and bad.

HYTHLODAY: I understand. What is the correct approach?

 Paulino 4

MORE: Hartz contrasts “ambivalence” to splitting (Hartz 3).

SOCRATES: Impossible! How can I possibly be expected to be ambivalent when the Gods

themselves proclaimed me the wisest of men?

HYTHLODAY: I agree. Ambivalence seems cowardly, as if I should follow your advice

Thomas and “take a silent role than to say something inappropriate” (Utopia 37).

MORE: Socrates, did the God not tell you you were the wisest because you were the most

humble of all men? That you admitted to not being all knowing about things such as politics or

poetry (Apology 21d)?

SOCRATES: Yes.

MORE: And Raphael, ambivalence does not oblige you to withhold your opinions, for that is

exactly what monarchs do to their councils now. It instead means that your radical opinions

would now be welcomed, rather than treated as if you had “no ideas at all” (Utopia 38).

HYTHLODAY: I see.

MORE: My point is that we all already participate in acts of ambivalence as Hartz defines it.

Questioning the world around us, seeing the gray in areas where others are too stubborn or afraid

to change their viewpoints.

SOCRATES: This is a great teaching moment for our audience here. It is important to be a

Gadfly amongst horses (Apology 30e). Controversy should be welcomed with open arms rather

than with disgust or fear. Awaken those around you with new ideas and customs that may stray

from the norm, and allow yourself to be awakened as well! If we, the “great minds,” can admit to

not being all knowing, then surely you can too.

 Paulino 5

HYTHLODAY: Which brings me to the question, what did Hartz do about Amanda? Did he

create a teaching moment, or did he hold his tongue in fear of losing her business?

MORE: He doesn’t include that in the summary, but I am interested in hearing what you both

would have done if you were in his shoes.

HYTHLODAY: The treatment of African Americans in the United States is truly unfortunate. I

condemn cruel punishment and unfair treatment, as I mentioned in my conversation with the

Cardinal long ago (Utopia 23). So I would applaud Amanda on her stance against racism. I

would be unsure, however, how to approach the topic of identity.

SOCRATES: I would take the opportunity to discuss what identity is. I do not know the answer,

so who am I to tell Amanda that she is wrong in how she feels? But it is an interesting topic

nonetheless. I believe that the youth enjoy these conversations, seeing as how they enjoyed

talking to me and spreading what they learned (Apology 23c). So if I were Hartz, I would not

have held my tongue. I do not think I would have lost Amanda's business, and if I did, I would

not have cared since I do not care about profit.

MORE: I do not believe I would not have held my tongue either. Like Hartz, I would be afraid

of provoking her and having my advice fall upon deaf ears (Hartz 1). I realize, however, that you

can not “give up the ship in a storm because you can not hold back the winds” (Utopia 37). Like

Socrates, I would take it as a teaching moment for the both of us. I would also take the time to

explain to her that “what you cannot turn to good, you may at least make as little bad as

possible” (Utopia 37). It is important that she understands that although things may seem

unfixable, the smallest acts still have an impact. I myself could learn from Raphael and not be
 Paulino 6

content with silence, since, as Hartz says, silence in this case might simply aggravate the

problem (Hartz 1).

HYTHLODAY: Elegantly said. I think that is all we have time for today’s episode.

MORE: We spent another episode discussing Socrates’ favorite ice cream, but at least we got

some political dialogue in!

SOCRATES: I’ll see you all tomorrow, when we’ll discuss how gentrification is destroying the

history of New York City!