Review: The Politics, Aristotle

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrShare on LinkedIn

Aristotle’s The Politics is arguably far more interesting than Plato’s Republic. The structure of Aristotle’s work was perhaps not highly appealing for those interested in a coherent work on political philosophy and the foundations for a robust political theory. For those who like to read philosophy in bite-size, however, this book is to be recommended. In other ways the Politics outpaced the Republic. It was not based as much on logic, and indeed formed the basis of a proto-constitutional comparative analysis of the states in the age of antiquity and before. Perhaps aspects of the comparisons with ancient states and their goings-on were hard-going at times, but this is purely because the knowledge of those ancient times is scarce. Nonetheless, compared against the backdrop of Plato, the Politics was a liberal, open and free-minded work in which many topics were covered. There is no oppressive labelling of people into three classes. Rather, an individual’s worth is based on their pursuit of virtue and his or her lifestyle. This links in with Aristotle’s central work on politics, arguably the most interesting and important theme – citizenship.

Much is discussed of what ‘the good life’ is to Aristotle: to achieve happiness and pursue virtue. There are deeper discussions of what makes a good citizen and a good man – in some constitutions they are not the same thing. He goes on to argue that one can be a sound citizen, without being a good man. Once one draws out the consequences of this idea, some major thoughts on the ideal citizen and the ideal life become pertinent. What is the role of man in society? Is man by nature a political animal, as Aristotle claims? Can the ideal man become the ideal citizen? Are they the same thing? Who has a right to citizenship? It is these questions which are of paramount importance to present-day society, less so his idea that every state must prepare for war and that currency is an evil on this earth. The most critical point that Aristotle makes with regards to the relationship between politics and citizenship is the following analogy: ‘the builder can certainly form an opinion on a house, but the user, the household-manager, will be an even better judge’; i.e. the politician will be able to form an opinion on the state, but the citizen will be an even better judge (p.205). Moreover, the citizen has rights and responsibilities, and it is this understanding that is crucial to understanding the good life: being both free to live as you please while at the same time taking your responsibilities seriously.

From this, Aristotle concludes that the best constitution is a ‘polity’. In his opinion, a mixture of democracy and oligarchy (providing it is the right mixture) will allow for the best constitution. In many ways, however, Aristotle does not spell out a specific ideology. Some areas are clear, yet others remain pretty shady. He concludes in the end that the ideal ‘polity’ will have a mean of everything – the middle way. Aristotle still prefers an elitist type of rule. He makes countless arguments for democracy, including the work on citizenship mentioned previously – but he then goes on to dismiss it. The extent to which he does this is fascinating, even frustrating. He claims that all men should have a say in the offices of state, he argues that the citizen and sound man rule supreme, that checks and balances in offices are an invaluable resource, and so on – only to then rule those out in favour of an aristocratic natural order of states. Perhaps this is caused by the deep epistemological difference between ancient Greek philosophers and modern day political theorists with regard to democracy. Throughout the Politics, it has been made clear that democracy does not simply mean rule by the people, it means rule by the many more poor people over the rich and few. The difference is in wealth and the meaning of ‘many’ – it does not mean ‘the people’, it means ‘the poor’. If Aristotle could have seen past that, his work would be an invaluable guide even today.

If one could be selective about Aristotle’s work in the Politics, one should commend his thoughts on citizenship, his ideals of equality and his clearly liberal constitution for the aim of virtue and ‘the good life’. What should be left out are the musings of war, elitism and slavery. Aristotle’s polity stands in stark antithesis to Plato’s harsh, bland and oppressive state where the focus is on maximal social production with a bias for the appreciation of philosophy.

Article by Marc Geddes.
Edited by Joe Sutcliffe.