Aristotle's Practical Philosophy (part 2)
Part 2: Politics
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. (1252a 1)
So begins Aristotle’s Politics. Having stated in his ethics what constitutes the highest good for human beings, i.e., eudaimonia, Aristotle posits this as the most important purpose of the state and the ultimate basis of political association. A state is “a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life” (Politics 1276a 20). Ideally, the state will seek to achieve the real human good as its highest priority, but states often give undue priority to other apparent goods.
2.1 Aristotle’s optimistic republicanism
Aristotle classifies states’ forms of government as genuine or perverted based on whether they pursue the good (real or apparent) for the entire community or only for the rulers. He further classifies forms of government according to whether they are ruled by one person, a few persons, or a majority of the persons governed, yielding six forms of government:
rule by one: kingship (genuine) or tyranny (perverted)
rule by few: aristocracy (genuine) or oligarchy (perverted)
rule by many: “polity” (genuine) or democracy (perverted)
Reading the table counterclockwise, we get Aristotle’s ranking of governments from best to worst: kingship, aristocracy, “polity”, democracy, oligarchy, tyranny. The genuine forms of government pursue the (real) good of the entire community while the perverted forms pursue the (perceived) good of some at the expense of the others (the key difference is whether the good of the entire community is pursued or only that of the rulers, not whether the good pursued is the real good or a merely apparent goods; a government that pursues a merely apparent good for the entire community is defective but genuine).
“Aristocracy” in English usually refers to a hereditary nobility, but that is not what Aristotle has in mind here. Strictly speaking, an aristocracy is “rule by the best” defined in terms of virtue, though Aristotle acknowledges that in the usage of his day, so-called aristocracies did not assign offices solely on the basis of virtue, but also took into account wealth and popular support (1293b 7 ff.).
“Polity” translates politēia, a generic term that, according to the usage of Aristotle’s day, could be applied to any form of government that had a determinate constitution (it is sometimes translated as “constitutional government”). Aristotle uses this term because there was no existing term that applied specifically to the form of government that he had in mind here. Aristotle had no term for it but Cicero did: res publica, of which the English derivative is “republic” (or “commonwealth”, for those who prefer the Saxon to the Romance).
The “one, few, many” schema is artificially neat. Aristotle complicates it by pointing out that the distinctions between the rich and the poor are more fundamental to his political classifications than the distinction between few and many. A state in which the rich rule and also outnumber the poor is possible, but Aristotle declines to call such a state a democracy, even though the majority would rule in that case. Stating the archetypal cases, Aristotle says, “. . . the form of government is a democracy when the free, who are also poor and the majority, govern, and an oligarchy when the rich and the noble govern, they being at the same time few in number” (1290b 19). “Noble” here means those having inherited wealth and status rather than those who are self-made or nouveau riche.
Aristotle recognizes the importance of the distribution of wealth. He notes that the state is more stable if the middle class is predominant; a state that is polarized between rich and poor is ripe for revolution. States are more likely to be well run if the middle class is larger and stronger than the rich or the poor (1295b ff.).
Although Aristotle believes the ideal form of government to be one in which one or a few individuals of outstanding virtue and ability exercise power on behalf of the entire community, he recognizes that that may not be achievable under the actual conditions that a state is faced with. In many cases, a republic is the best that a community can realistically hope for. Aristotle also includes under the heading of republic those forms of government that are stable compromises of the other forms, assigning certain powers to one, others to a few, and others to many. This is the idea of a mixed or “balanced” constitution, which takes on greater importance in subsequent political theories that favor republics over other forms of government. He is optimistic about the ability of “the many” to arrive at the correct course of action through deliberation “For the many . . . when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good . . . . For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man . . .” (1281a 40 ff.).
Although Aristotle does not believe that “the many” should hold the magistracies of the state, he does believe that the magistrates should be accountable to them. He uses the analogy of a feast: the cooks may be the experts in food preparation, but the final judgment regarding the quality of the food prepared rests not with the cooks but with the guests.
Aristotle views government as a positive good, an expression of human nature, and a necessary means to fulfilling human potential, which is to say that he does not view it as a necessary evil, a corruption of some primitive state of virtue, or an obstacle to human happiness. Thus there is a contrast between Aristotle and Liberal thinkers such as Hobbes or Rousseau, of which I shall say more in future posts.
2.2 The citizen
States are composed of individuals, i.e., citizens. Different states have different qualifications for citizenship, so that not all residents of the territory a state controls are citizens. Seeking a definition of citizenship that applies to all states, Aristotle proposes, “He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state” (1275b 19).
Of great importance for the development of later political thought is the concept of civic virtue. The preceding discussion of aretē concerns the virtue of a person qua human being, but aretē is not necessarily the same as civic virtue, i.e., the virtue of a person qua citizen. A person can be a good citizen without being a good person, and presumably vice versa. The aretē of a human being is the same for all, but the civic virtue of a citizen is relative to the constitution of the state to which the citizen belongs. Behavior that makes one a good citizen of a democracy might make one a bad citizen of an oligarchy. “In the perfect state the good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen; whereas in other states the good citizen is only good relatively to his own form of government” (1239b 5).
Complete human aretē and civic virtue coincide non-accidentally only in the person of a member of the ruling class of a well-ordered state. For only the ruler(s) need possess political phronēsis in order for a well-ordered state to fulfill its function; for the other citizens it suffices to follow the directions of the rulers. The other virtues must be possessed by both rulers and subjects, however (Politics III:4). It may be inferred that in a poorly-ordered state, human virtue and civic virtue may be at odds; Plato depicts Socrates as an example of this.
2.3 The household
Aristotle recognizes the household as another form of community, one that is essential to the larger community of the state. The state is ultimately composed of individuals, but the household is a necessary intermediate organizational step between the individual and the state (Aristotle also briefly mentions the village, but doesn’t say much about it). The state cannot take over the functions of the household, and the state cannot fulfill its functions if households do not fulfill theirs. Aristotle is not completely clear about the respective roles of the state and of the household in the education of children, but he clearly believes that that this is not simply a matter of private concern (1179b, 1180a-b, 1337a 20).
Aristotle’s household is a natural community with affective, procreative, and economic dimensions (our word “economics” comes from the Greek oikonomikē, which referred to the running of a household). In Aristotle’s Greece the household was not just a family but also a productive unit. Aristotle’s household can be thought of as combining the modern concepts of the family and the firm.
Thus, Aristotle’s practical philosophy is based on a moderately individualistic philosophical anthropology. This moderate individualism contrasts with both the extreme atomistic individualism of Hobbes and subsequent Liberal thought, and the collectivism of Liberalism’s leftist critics. It is the individual, not the state, that achieves eudaimonia, but the individual cannot achieve eudaimonia outside of a functioning community.