Defiance, Persuasion, or Conformity? The Argument in Plato's Apology and Crito

While the relation between the individual and the state belongs clearly to one of the most complex issues in Western political philosophy, the relation between the Socrates of the Apology and that of the Crito ranks, accordingly, as one of the most contentious problems in the entire Socratic scholarship. This is due to the fact that in the Apology (29 c–d) one is confronted with a defiant rebel who daringly challenges the established political order, whereas in the Crito (51 b–c) one encounters a law-abiding citizen who meekly submits himself to the harsh judgment of the Athenian Laws. Thus, the two dialogues present the reader with the difficulty of somehow reconciling Socrates’ belligerent repudiation of the state during the trial with his humble acceptance of the resulting death sentence. If the Apology and Crito revolve around the perennial conflict between the private (τὸ ἴδιον) and the public (τὸ κοινόν), then their dilemma is whether, and if so, in what circumstances, the citizen is entitled to flout the laws of their state. Carried to its extreme, the doctrine of civil disobedience leads to the problem of “a city without laws (πόλις [...] ἄνευ νόμων)”1. Clearly, if everybody could reject the state and its laws whenever they felt disappointed with these institutions, then the only possible result would be social disintegration and total anarchy, which, as Plato argues in the Republic (562 b – 564 a), would ultimately lead to tyranny. Hence, if we agree that civil disobedience should always be