Aristotle (384-322 B.C.

E)

Not to be quoted/shared/copied

Aristotle objected to Plato’s separation of form (the intelligible world of being) from matter
(the sensory world of appearances or becoming). Form according to Aristotle is immanent
(within) in matter and not transcendentally separated from it. Hence Aristotle rejects Plato’s
dualism of form and matter. Therefore, we need not speak of a perfect form of a tree or of
any other object of sensation existing apart from “real trees” or “real objects” says Aristotle.
Every tree manifests form; that is in an ideal pattern of “tree ness” that is inherent within it,
just as every human being inherently manifests the form of human ness.

Aristotle’s theory of form is said to be advantageous as it avoids the difficulty that

Plato had in demonstrating how ‘matter’ participates in form. Also, it overcomes the problem
of change that troubled many Greek thinkers. Plato insisted that form is transcendental, as
matter changes. Since form is perfect and unchangeable, it cannot be united with matter. For
Aristotle, the relationship of form to matter is one of potentiality (becoming) but it develops
towards form or actuality (being). For instance, immanent within the acorn is the form of the
oak tree. The acorn is potential and given the necessary conditions, will actualize itself as an
oak tree.

Also central to Aristotle’s theory of form is the idea of development. Things develop
to their own perfection and completeness. According to Aristotle, the function of theory is to
explain this process and the function/purpose that it serves. Hence, he insists that science of
any subject matter (physical, biological or political) must be teleological. Teleology means
the study of ends or purposes (telos). For instance, an acorn has a purpose to fulfill, an end
towards which it moves; and its structure, growth and transformation must be analyzed in the
light of that end. Aristotle’s theory of forms also shaped his science of politics, just as it did
Plato’s. This is reflected in two of his main works namely, ‘Politics’ and ‘Nichomachean
Ethics’1 Aristotle intended that both be read together as the study of Ethics and Politics has
the same purpose. Ethics is the study of meaning, purpose or end -the telos of human life.
These questions are the subject matter of political science as, “[E]nd in politics as well as in
ethics can only be good for man.” In fact, for Aristotle, ethics is just a branch of political

1
This is considered Aristotle’s best work on Ethics. It includes 10 books based on lectures that he gave at the
Lycaeum (This was a temple dedicated to Apollo Lyceus, the wolf God. It was a place where philosophic
debates used to be held). The book may have been named after his father or son; both of whom were called
Nicomachus.
science. In ethics we study the ‘Good’ from the perspective of the whole community.
However, when Plato had searched for ethical values such as justice in the realm of
‘transcendence’, Aristotle looks for them in the very facts of the human condition. Ethics
after all refers to real people and their real behavior. Hence, we should expect to find the
form of justice, or any other ethical value in people’s actual behavior.

Therefore, within his text, ‘Ethics’; Aristotle refers to real people and their actual
behavior but in a teleological system. In answering the question, ‘What is Good?’, he would
respond by saying, “[T]hat at which all things aim.” According to Aristotle, what people aim
at above all is ‘happiness.’ Hence, the ethical value which all humans aim at is happiness.
However, what makes for happiness in humans, is unique to humans, namely their capacity to
act appropriately upon a rational basis. Hence happiness is a virtue which is related to the
ability to perform a function well. For people to perform well, their actions must be based on
a rational basis.

Aristotle also refers to a range of virtues such as liberality, temperance, justice and
others. However, unlike Plato, he defines these virtues based on what people say about them.
He does not reject mere opinion, common sense beliefs about these virtues. People practice
virtue because they realize that it contributes to happiness. For instance, they recognize that a
courageous person is happy while a coward is miserable. Hence virtue is not something that
exists in the sky attainable only be the few. Each one of us can attain virtue. Further Aristotle
rejects Plato’s argument that moral virtue is strictly identical to knowledge. For Aristotle
habit and training play an important role in developing virtue and we learn to be virtuous by
practicing virtue. For instance, men become builders by building, harp players by playing the
harp and so on. Hence, we become just by performing just actions, brave by performing brave
actions and temperate by performing temperate actions. What is unique in Aristotle is his
emphasis on practice as opposed to pure reason. Human happiness is the result of reason plus
action and not reason alone.

Further for Aristotle, virtue is a mean. It is equidistant between extremes. For

instance, courage is a mean between cowardice on the one hand and foolhardiness on the
other. Courage is reasoned action. This leads us to Aristotle’s politics as politics is a
collective form of reasoned action.

Aristotle’s views on human nature and ethics

Mulgan writes that politics for Aristotle implies the Polis or the Greek city state.
Achievement of human good is the aim of political science i.e. the science of the Polis. The
Polis provided a unique type of civilized life, which according to Aristotle was indispensable
for the full development of human potential. Also, political science aims at the whole of
human good and not just isolated individuals. An account of Aristotle’s political theory
begins with an account of human good. Good life involves exercise of two virtues namely
ethical and intellectual. The ethical man is courageous, seeks justice, is honest, has proper
ambition, magnanimity, friendliness, truthfulness, wit and keeps his physical desires under
control i.e. temperance. In addition to ethical virtues, the happy man must also have what
Aristotle terms as external goods. However, happiness does not require more than a moderate
level of external goods like property, wealth and others. Aristotle therefore takes the middle
course. Along with ethical values and external goods, the good life also includes intellectual
virtues. The intellectual virtue, most relevant to human happiness is wisdom. Aristotle, unlike
Plato claims that a life of pure contemplation would be too high for man. Man is partly and
not wholly divine. Aristotle’s conclusion is thus another compromise. Human happiness
entails a mixture of ethical and intellectual virtues. Though Aristotle believed that
contemplation is the only divine activity; he was ready to accept this mixed ideal as his final
account of the nature of good life. However even this mixed ideal is exclusive. This is
because Aristotle assumes that philosophical ability is relatively rare and secondly, exercise
of intellectual and ethical virtues requires a degree of leisure and material prosperity which
depends on the exertions of others who are thereby excluded from the life of virtue.

For Aristotle, man by nature is a social or a ‘political animal.’ Aristotle argues that
man alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust (Politics). According to
Aristotle, then man is by nature an ethical being. For human beings, a natural life is a life of
justice. Only if they live a life of justice do they satisfy the requirements of their very own
nature and thereby become human beings, properly so called. For Aristotle, the ultimate aim
of politics is to enable the process of personal development to take place. It is political
society that makes it possible for individual human beings to live a ‘good life.’ To fulfill
one’s potential is to achieve a condition which Aristotle calls ‘Eudaimonia’ (Greek for
fulfillment) (Nicomachean Ethics). To achieve eudaimonia, there are rules or laws that set the
standard for right or wrong. For Aristotle those are the principles of ‘political justice’ of the
Polis. For Aristotle the study of politics is the ‘highest master science’ because it incorporates
within itself the study of ethics.
Justice

Tony Burns writes that Aristotle explicates his theory of justice in Book 5 of the
Nicomachean Ethics. In speaking of Ethics, Aristotle is known to reflect on moral virtue in
general, also moral virtue such as honesty and courage and then ethics as ‘political justice.’
Alisdair MacIntyre for instance, argues that Aristotle essentially speaks about ‘moral virtues’
rather than ‘moral rules’ (Ethics of virtue). However, Burns argues that, for Aristotle moral
rules or laws remain important. Also, justice for Aristotle is not simply a state of mind, or a
moral virtue but it also has to do with ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ of our actions. Hence
unjust is simply to act contrary to law. By law, here Aristotle means moral law. However, as
the sphere of the ethical and political are identical, he does not distinguish between moral law
and that which we call ‘positive law.’ However, as positive laws of the ‘Polis’ are also its
moral rules; there is no independent way to critically evaluate ‘positive laws.’

Justice itself may be understood in a general sense and in a particular sense. Aristotle
further argues that in a particular sense, we associate the concept of justice with ‘fairness’
which in turn is connected to that of equality. Justice in this second or particular sense, has to
do with those actions which affect other people, many of which are regulated by law.
Aristotle’s understanding of ‘particular justice’ is expressed best in his book Politics.

While justice for Aristotle has to do with equality, equality itself is of two kinds:

1) Proportional Equality or fairness

2) Arithmetic Equality

The first is more important than the second and the second is a limiting condition of the first.
Proportionate equality means that those who are equal ought to be treated equally if their
circumstances are similar in some relevant respect. It also requires that those who are not
equal in some relevant respect ought not to be treated equally. Unequal ought to be treated
differently, provided the difference in treatment is proportional to the inequality that exists
between them. If this condition is satisfied, then Aristotle argues that we may claim that they
have been treated justly, even when treated differently.

Arithmetic equality implies that those who are equal, and their circumstances are
equal are relevantly similar, must be treated equally and not proportionally. Burns argues that
here the principle of ‘equity’ reduces itself to that of mere ‘reciprocity.’ Which means, ‘doing
as one would be done by.’ Further, writing in the Ethics, he refers to two areas where this is
applicable, namely rectificatory and distributive justice. Rectificatory justice is applicable
to regulating social and ethical relationships between citizens of a particular Polis. In this
arena, the people involved are considered equal in all respects; therefore, they must treat each
other equally and also be treated equally by the law. However, in case an imbalance arises
then law must correct it. Therefore, murder, theft, adultery and other such actions which are
‘intrinsically’ wrong are within the purview of ‘rectificatory justice.’ However, it is important
to note that this rectificatory principle does not apply to all human beings, as Aristotle does
not believe that slaves are by nature equal.

With regard to distributive justice, Aristotle would argue that one needs to identify the
‘good’ that has to be distributed; the ‘body of persons’ amongst whom the good has to be
distributed and the determination of a ‘principle of distribution’ which determines who gets
what and how much. Hence in case of the criteria of distribution, attributes of citizens; the
degree of ‘possession’ or non-possession’ of those attributes will determine how goods are
distributed. Citizenship may also be considered a good to be distributed. In this case the male
adult residents of the city state are in contention.

Burns argues that Aristotle’s principle of ‘equity’ is merely a ‘formal principle’

implying a commitment to impartiality and ‘rule of law.’ Substantive justice then depends on
the customs and traditions or ‘ethical conventions’ of the polis. Hence, according to Aristotle
it is essential to move from a study of ethics and formal principle of justice to the study of
politics

Citizenship

Associated with early Greek thinkers such as Aristotle. Aristotle in his classic statement
argues that man by nature is a political animal. By saying so Aristotle goes on to argue how
the political community or Polis is also a natural institution but continues to exist for the sake
of the ‘good life’. He says that as the polis was a product of natural associations such as the
family and villages the polis is also natural as it provides self -sufficiency. However apart
from its instrumental value the Polis “.....exists for the sake of living well”. He also argues
that the Polis is prior to all other associations. For him the whole is bigger than the parts. He
argues that just as the notion of the tree is embedded in the seed, the idea of a Polis is
embedded in the most primitive form of association. Hence all movement and evolution is
towards fulfilment of that idea of a whole which pre-dates the parts. Hence the Polis is
greater than its parts and also greater than its citizens. However, while Aristotle recognises
that there may be many kinds of Poleis (many Polis), there are also a great variety of
constitutions and hence varying notions of citizenship. Hence understanding of citizenship
would vary under an Aristocracy or an Oligarchy.

Citizenship for Aristotle is based on “ruling and being ruled in turn”. It is concerned with
“sharing in decision and office”. Hence unlike Plato who confined the task of ruling to a
particular class of citizens who have a predominance of the element of reason and are called
‘Philosopher Kings’, Aristotle would argue that each citizen has something to contribute to
the Polis and hence each must be allowed to rule in turn. However, citizenship as defined by
Aristotle was rather exclusionary in nature as it only included adult males who were from
Greece. Hence almost half of the population consisting of women, slaves and foreigners were
excluded from citizenship or participation in the Polis. It is argued that just as the soul rules
the body, ‘intellect’ rules ‘appetite’, hence masters must rule over slaves. Slave, “participate
in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but do not have it”. It is argued that the slave
totally lacks the element of deliberation, while women have it but they lack authority and in
children it is incomplete. Hence Aristotle makes a separation between the Polis and the
household, in a sense demarcation between the public and private spheres.

To lead a good life Aristotle recommends cultivation of appropriate virtue. Human character
for Aristotle is neither wholly bad nor good. Hence through education, in particular a public
system of education and a system of laws it is possible to make citizens virtuous. Through
cultivation of civic virtues it is expected that civic friendship (Philia) will strengthen
associational life. Aristotle’s account of citizenship as elaborated in his book Politics is
considered as one of the earliest and elaborate discussion on the topic.

The Practice of Citizenship

The term Demos referred to the collective existence of citizens. Involvement of the citizenry
in decision making in the Poleis or ‘participatory sharing of power’ was a result of
constitutional reform carried out by Solon and Cleisthenes. Their contribution was in ending
the reign of tyranny and the rule of the aristocrats paving the way for the beginning of some
form of democracy. However, it might be instructive to mention here that modern forms of
democracy were not seen as ideal types of constitution. In fact, Aristotle called democracy a
perverted form of constitution equating it to a mobocracy.

Solon’s contribution was in terms of introducing a mixed constitution involving sharing of

power between different classes. Cleisthenes promoted citizens’ allegiance towards to the
Polis as opposed to the individual tribes that inhabited the city states.

The Polis had three main institutions. These were the Assembly (Ecclesia) which was a
gathering of all male adult members who would gather to discuss and decide on matters both
public and private including taxation, war treaties and others. The assembly met around 40
times a year and all citizens irrespective of their class were allowed to participate in its
proceedings. While the actual population of Athens was around 30,000 to 60,000, it is said
that around 6,000 to 8,000 citizens would attend the meetings, equalling a quorum. The
Council of 500 (Boule) represented the government of Athens. Its 500 members were drawn
from the 10 tribes or Demes as reconstituted by Cleisthenes. Each tribe selected 50 members
to represent it by a system of lots for a period of one year to the Council. The members must
be 30 years of age and could be selected only twice in their lifetime. While the system
appeared to be democratic, in practice it is argued that it was the wealthy and aristocratic
class that dominated. The third democratic institution, i.e. the courts was a feature of Solon’s
mixed constitution. In the mixed constitution the aristocrats, the oligarchs and the
common/poor people all shared in power. The courts conducted both civil and criminal trials
as well heard appeals from people dissatisfied by the decisions of the Assembly or the
Council and consisted of around 200 jurors. Jurors were paid for their services hence this
allowed the poorer sections to also participate in governance.

Aristotle’s views on Household

Aristotle argues that all institutions are set up for the purpose of attaining some good and are
classified in terms of their ends. The household has the purpose of sustaining life while the
end of the Polis is the pursuit of the good life. Hence the Polis is the whole which includes
households and aggregates of households (villages). For Aristotle the relationship between
the Polis and household is that between freedom and necessity.

There are three kinds of relationships between people in the household. Those
between parents and children; husband and wife and master and slave. The household is
based on two fundamental distinctions in human nature. One is the difference between male
and female which enables the human race to reproduce itself. The other is the difference
between ruler and ruled, in particular between the man who has the intellectual capacity for
ruling as a master and the man who can do no more than carry out his master’s orders. These
two instinctive relations along with that of the parent and child form the household.

Referring to economics under the heading,’ The art of household management,’ he

argues that it is essentially concerned with the right use of household property. However, he
also recognizes that acquisition must be its proper concern. Here he distinguishes between
natural and unnatural acquisition. The former including farming, fishing and hunting which
make use of resources to serve the material ends of life. Such accumulation of wealth is
naturally limited and also morally acceptable. However, he contrasts this with unnatural
acquisition arising out of exchange, for the purpose of profit making, where ‘money’ or
‘unnatural wealth’ is pursued for its own sake. The latter is unlimited; unrelated to the true
ends of the household and morally unjustifiable. Hence activities such as retail trade,
manufacture and usury were considered corrupting.

The household remained the primary unit of personal identity for the Greeks. It was
also the central institution of economic life. The political rule of the Polis is the anti-thesis
and sequel of the authoritarian rule of the household. The equal citizen must first be a
monarch in his own home. Hence only heads of households are in a position to be citizens
and other members of the household do not directly participate in the political arena.

However, it is argued that his view of the household is modelled on the traditional
aristocratic households of the fourth century rather than was typical in contemporary Athens.
This was because most citizen households were without domestic slaves in the 5th century
Athens.

Hence Aristotle contrasts the political and public with the economic and private.
Those confined to the private domestic sphere are deprived of the opportunity of winning
honour and reputation among equals.

Also, it contrasts political man with economic man. The former is a sphere of
achievement not attainable by all, while ‘economic man’ is an inherent universal status.
Whereas political man engages in moral activity in the service of the public good as well as
his own, economic man is conceived primarily as a ‘passive consumer’ rather than a
producer. Hence Aristotle does not associate economic activity with full humanity because it
is associated with pursuit of ‘private good’ rather than ‘public good’. The life devoted to
money-making is to Aristotle, finally not only immoral but also irrational.

Property too is a part of the household and includes both animate and inanimate
instruments with the slave being the most useful animate instrument/ article of property.
However, even though management of property is deemed a household affair, its distribution
is a political and constitutional matter. Aristotle argues against common ownership of
property, but in favour of private ownership and common use.

Constitutions and the Polity

Aristotle is best known for his commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law. A
constitution for Aristotle is a coherent framework of laws, or principles of political justice;
impartially applied. Aristotle here applies the theory of justice developed in the Ethics. The
question of deciding, who would rule? is a question of distributive justice for Aristotle.
Aristotle deals with this question in two ways. The first is to determine ‘who’ does the ruling
and the second is to ascertain whose interests are being promoted by a particular system of
government. In all societies, Aristotle would argue, governments may be in the hands of one,
a few or the many. Further government may either be in the ‘common interest’ or the ‘private
interest’ of those who rule. If we combine these two principles then, we get six pure types of
constitutions although in practice these may be combined in different ways thereby giving
rise to various ‘mixed constitutions.’ The first three pure types of constitutions are those in
which the one, the few and the many rule in the interests of all (or the common interest) and
therefore rule justly. Aristotle calls these constitutions ‘kingship’, ‘aristocracy’ and ‘polity’
respectively. The other three pure types are ‘tyranny’, ‘oligarchy’ and ‘democracy’ in which
the one, the few and the many rule for their ‘private interests’ and therefore rule ‘unjustly.’
Aristotle calls these ‘corrupt’ or ‘perverted’ constitutions.

The second argument that Aristotle takes up is what standard should be adopted in
distributing political power amongst the citizens or inhabitants of a Polis. He argues that there
are three possible standards of distributing power amongst citizens. These are wealth,
citizenship and moral virtue or ‘goodness.’ For instance, in an oligarchy, the standard of
distribution is wealth. The wealthy have more power than the less wealthy. This is considered
just, as the unequal distribution of power is proportional to the unequal distribution of wealth.
In a democracy, the standard of distribution is citizenship. Burns writes that, here
Aristotle assumes that power is distributed amongst the adult male inhabitants of the
Polis and not just the citizens. However, those who are citizens, will receive more of this
good than those who are not. Also, as all citizens possess the attribute of citizenship to
the same degree, justice requires that political power be distributed between them in
accordance with the principal of strict arithmetical equality. However, both oligarchy and
democracy are considered perverted kinds of constitutions as when measured by an absolute
standard of justice, they are faulty and represent only a part of justice. Distribution of
political power in these constitutions is arbitrary as it implies giving some people more just
because they may be ‘taller’ than others. Hence, for Aristotle, the appropriate standard of
distribution of political power would be nobility, merit or excellence namely moral goodness
or virtue. For Aristotle, as was for Plato, those who should rule are a minority, who are
educated, virtuous and wise. Aristotle accepts that such a class would belong to the propertied
stratum of society in the Polis. They would own moderate wealth such that they are freed
from the task of working daily and hence, would have enough leisure to engage in pursuits of
the mind. Aristotle calls these people, the ‘middle class’ of the Polis. Hence Aristotle’s ideal
form of constitution is really an aristocracy. However as this may not be possible in practice,
an alternative is the ‘Polity’ which in its pure form is an ‘ideal type of democracy’ wherein
citizens are assumed to be virtuous and good. However, he also writes that Polity may be
thought of as a ‘mixed constitution.’ Polity in this second sense is realistic and an attainable
form of democracy in which rule by the ‘people’ who are assumed by Aristotle not to be
virtuous and good is balanced in some way by the influence of the minority who are wealthy
and educated.

Aristotle does not write on the ideal state, but rather on the ideals of the state. In particular, he
refers to the physical, intellectual and geographical components which are essential for the
establishment of the ideal state. All these components have been mentioned in Plato’s book,
‘The laws’ and not in the ‘Republic.’ Thus, it would be correct to say that the state which
Aristotle considers as ideal is actually Plato’s ‘second best state.’

Also, Aristotle is not an absolutist in political philosophy as was Plato. He is instead a

relativist. Plato argues that his ideal state is the best for all times and all human communities.
However, Aristotle argues that without knowledge of the true nature of a population, we
cannot decide on the best form of constitution for a population. Hans Kelsen in particular
holds the position that Aristotle was an ethical or constitutional relativist. For instance,
Aristotle argues that in every Polis, ‘The citizen should be moulded to suit the form of
government under which he lives.’ However, such a reading of Aristotle suggests that his six
fold classification of constitutions is flawed as there cannot be unnatural and unjust
constitutions.

The best practicable state for Aristotle remains the ‘Polity.’ However, such a
constitution cannot be established in all states as it requires certain special circumstances to
be brought into practice. Thus, the state in which these circumstances are made possible
would represent the ideal state.

Polity, for Aristotle is the best average constitution under most circumstances. It is a
form of democracy in which the many participate in ruling; but ‘unlike’ a ‘pure’ democracy,
it is established under the constraints of law and for the public good. Polity is created by
combining the principles of democracy and oligarchy; that is by constitutionally balancing
the rich and poor such that neither group is able to dominate the state. Such balancing can
occur only when there is a large a middle class that acts as a buffer between the wealthiest
and poorest sections in society. Hence by mixing the principles of oligarchy and democracy,
a mixed constitution is created. Polity, a ‘just’ state is a mixture of two ‘unjust’ states. Hence
while Plato is concerned with the ideal state, Aristotle is concerned with the ‘best practicable
state.’ State exists so that people may engage in public speech and action.

Features of Aristotle’s state

 Aristotle’s ideal state is always a small city state. He argues that if there are not
enough citizens, the city will not provide the necessities of life and if there are too
many, the city will not be governed well.
 Law is supreme in Aristotle’s ideal state. It should not have the totalitarian rule of the
most virtuous citizens. Herein lies the difference between Plato and Aristotle. While
the former admitted laws in his ideal state as a concession to the weakness of human
nature; Aristotle refers to laws as an essential part of the ideal state.
 The main purpose of the ideal state for Aristotle is to provide for a moral life for the
citizens.
  Like Plato, Aristotle too believes that the state is an educational institution, which
helps to promote, moral and intellectual excellence. For this a universal and public
educational system is needed. Of particular importance, for his educational theory, is
his view of political and ethical ideals as essentially static and unchanging. This
impacts his approach to education. Provided that the older generation is educated in
the correct moral and political values, education is simply a question of passing these
values and principles to succeeding generations. Modern educational theory by
contrast is based on the assumption that society is constantly changing. Aristotle’s
authoritarianism in education thus, depends in parts on a static or conservative view of
society.
 Aristotle provides for private ownership of property, but it is to be used for communal
purposes. Moreover, the value of property should not be more than four times the
value of land.
 The ideal state also has a principle of division of labour according to which slaves
should be given the task of farming, resident foreigners the task of trade and
commerce and citizens, political tasks.
 Size of the state should not be too large or too small. The measure of the state is that,
it should be visible in one go.
 The ideal state should be established near the sea so that it is easy to import goods.
However, the sea should not be so close that trade increases unreasonably
 With regard to organisation of the state, Aristotle strikes a compromise again; planned
irregularity which can be both attractive and secure. He criticizes Plato’s view that the
ideal state should have no walls or fortifications.

The Polis is natural

Aristotle begins his analysis of the Polis by describing the Polis as a community, a concept
which is fundamental to his political theory. Aristotle’s statements about the Polis include
concepts about the ideal and the ordinary imperfect states. This combination of what is and
what ought to be follows from Aristotle’s general philosophical views of the nature of reality
and knowledge. All phenomena are to be defined in the nature of their essential character of a
community. Aiming at the ‘good’ is an essential character of a community. This tells us
something about the community and what a community ought to be like. Another essential
character of the Polis is that it should involve justice and friendship. Friendship implies
general sociability and justice is another fundamental term in Aristotle’s ethical and political
theory, includes in its broadest sense, all the moral principles which should govern people’s
social behaviour. In politics, the most important such principle is distributive justice.
According to distributive justice, ‘each partner’s share should be equal,’ not in the sense of
identical, but in the sense of proportionate to their deserts. However, there is a limit to the
amount of inequality that may obtain between members of a community and there must be
something, ‘common’ between them. Thus, to be a full member of a community, a person
must share independently in the end or purpose for which the community exists. For
Aristotle, one of the ways of describing the status of a full member is to say that he is free.
Freedom is essentially a matter of having independent value or existing for oneself. As all
communities, aim at some good, that one which is supreme and also embraces all others will
have also as its aim, the supreme good. That community is which we call the Polis and that
type of community we call political.

Aristotle begins his argument that the Polis is natural from a sketch of the household
and village. The first stage is the household, which is based on two fundamental distinctions
in human nature. One is the difference between male and female which enables the human
race to reproduce itself; and the other is the difference between ruler and ruled; in particular
between the man who has the intellectual capacity for ruling as a master and the man who can
do no more than carry out his master’s orders. These two instinctive relationships along with
that of parent and child form the household.

The household provides only the simplest necessities and so a number of households
unite into a village which can supply more than daily needs. But the village is still too small
and so several villages unite to form a Polis, which alone is large enough to be self-sufficient.
The original impetus for this large community comes from the need for the necessities of life,
but it continues to exist for the sake of good life. Being self-sufficient, the Polis marks the
final stage in the process of natural growth and development. Indeed, as it is the final stage, it
is the nature of human development; the essence which is realized at the end of natural
growth. Therefore, the Polis is a perfectly natural form of community as the earlier
communities from which it sprang, are natural.

However, even if, Aristotle’s account is historically accurate, this does not prove that
the development from household to Polis is a universal one or that it reveals anything about
human nature as such. Therefore, Aristotle must be able to prove that the successive human
communities of the household, village and Polis arose to meet certain universal needs.

The Polis is natural, not simply because it is the last stage in the historical evolution
but because it alone meets all man’s needs. It is self-sufficient.

For this Aristotle, distinguishes two forms of self-sufficiency which correspond to the
needs for the necessities of life and the need for the good life. Only the Polis can provide self-
sufficiency in both respects. Any community smaller than the Polis will not be complex
enough to provide the variety of material goods necessary to maintain life. As already seen in
his nature of man, material goods are a pre-requisite of leading an ethical life.

On the other hand, any community larger than the Polis, might provide the requisite
level of material prosperity, but won’t be able to offer the good life. Once a community has
grown beyond a certain size, it cannot be well governed and cannot provide the political
participation which every citizen of the ideal Polis will expect. The Polis is here the
manifestation of Aristotle’s ‘golden mean.’ The Polis, thus, fulfilling the condition of self-
sufficiency, its naturalness rests not on biological or historical fact but on the conception of
the good life.

Aristotle also regards the ‘Polis’ as a compounded whole. The members of the Polis
are not atomised individuals, related to one another, only on account of the fact that they
inhabit the same territory, but on account of the fact that they share in the joint activity of the
community, which gives a form or unity to the group as a whole. The unity of the Polis is
however not so great that the parts are completely lost in the whole. The components
perform, different functions which are complementary in nature. Diversity of function does
not necessarily imply diversity of values or interests. The end for which the Polis exists is the
good life and anybody who shares in this end may be described a part.

Aristotle also insists that the whole is prior to the parts and the Polis is prior to the
individual. Firstly, what is posterior in the order of becoming is prior in the order of nature.
Every process of natural growth and development is directed towards some goal or end. The
end is then prior to the beginning. Secondly, a thing is said to be prior to other things, when if
it does not exist, the others cannot exist; whereas it can exist, without the others. The Polis is
prior in both these specialized senses. Polis is then the end towards which man’s social
development is directed. Secondly, the function of man, the realisation of his essence lies in
the achievement of the good life, which cannot be experienced except in the Polis. Therefore,
anyone who lives outside the Polis, ceases to be a man.

References

Burns, T (2009) ‘Aristotle’ in David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds.) (2nd ed.) Political
Thinkers-From Socrates to the Present, Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Mulgan, R.G. (1977) Aristotle’s Political Theory-An Introduction for Students of Political
Theory, Oxford University Press