A History of Political Theories

William Dunning

• Publisher: Ozymandias Press
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781531291488
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

A HISTORY of political theories must begin with the thought of that brilliant aggregation of Mediterranean peoples whose astonishing development in intellectual culture, twenty-three centuries in the past, is still the wonder and despair of civilized man. Probably in no field save that of art are Greek ideals more highly appreciated at the present day than in political theory. This is in some measure due to the wide prevalence of democratic thought and feeling; but more decisive is the fact that the great thinkers of Hellas explored the entire height and depth of human political capacity and outlined the principles which at all times and in all circumstances must determine the general features of political life. With all its universality, however, Hellenic thought, like that of every other age and people, was determined primarily by the institutions amid which it developed. The only path of approach to an accurate apprehension of political philosophy is through political history. Our attention must, therefore, first be devoted to the salient facts in the growth of Greek constitutions...

THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE

~

1. Method and Character of The Politics

THE capital significance of Aristotle, in the history of political theories, lies in the fact that he gave to politics the character of an independent science. He differs from his master, Plato, much more in the form and method than in the substance of his thought. Most of the ideas which seem characteristically Aristotelian are to be found in Plato. But the Platonic expression of them is generally suggestion or allusion or illustration; while in Aristotle they appear as definite, clean-cut dogmas, bearing an unmistakable relation to the general system of scientific doctrine. This contrast is rooted in the respective intellectual peculiarities of the two philosophers. Plato is imaginative and synthetic; Aristotle is matter-of-fact and analytic. Ideas present themselves to Plato more through metaphor and analogy; to Aristotle more through the processes of exact logic. Plato is more impressed by the unity pervading phenomena; Aristotle, by the diversity. In ethics and politics, accordingly, while Plato, working deductively from his philosophic conceptions of virtue and the good, blended inextricably the two bodies of doctrine, Aristotle, proceeding by extensive observation and minute analysis of objective facts, marked out for each science an independent field.

The foundation of his political theory was laid by Aristotle in a detailed study of practically all the existing governmental systems, both Hellenic and barbarian. More than one hundred and fifty polities are said to have been analyzed in a work which is quoted in ancient literature as The Constitutions (αίπξλιτɛu00eeαu+03b). Of this work the only part now known by more than slight fragments is the recently discovered Constitution of Athens. From this it is clear that the author studied governments both in their history and in their contemporary working, and that his method was in the fullest sense objective and scientific. In his systematic work, The Politics, Aristotle draws abundantly from the great store of facts accumulated in The Constitutions. It is not exact, however, to say that the principles of The Politics are strictly generalizations from these facts. To a less extent than Plato, but yet to a very great extent, Aristotle depends for the categories and broad outline of his philosophy upon the ideas that characterized contemporary Hellenic thought. The results of his study of other ages and other peoples are employed more in the correction and illustration than in the foundation of his political science. His method is inductive, but not purely inductive. The intimate relations which he enjoyed with the half-barbarian court of Macedon1 seem never to have moved him from the conviction that in the pure Greek society and government was to be found the political ideal. That Aristotle, while not like Plato an idealist, nevertheless was often determined in his philosophy by an ideal, will appear clearly enough in what is to follow.

The creation of an independent science of politics by Aristotle was accomplished by the disentanglement of political from ethical conceptions. In Plato’s thought the two were completely blended. The separation effected by Aristotle was not so much the conclusion of a deliberate logical process as the unconscious outcome of the analytic method which he applied with such rigour to the solution of ethical problems. Rejecting Plato’s conception of a single universal abstract “good,” Aristotle considers that “good” is relative to each species of being. What, he asks, is the science which treats of the highest “good” of man? His answer is: political science. For the good of man is the perfect development and activity of all the powers that are in him, and this result is impossible to the individual without the association of his fellows—that is, without the π όλις. Therefore, the good of the individual is merged in that of the state. But the state he conceives as αύτἀρκŋς, or self-sufficing—that is, as dependent on no more ultimate form of being for the realization of the good which is its end. Therefore the science of the state, politics, is the dominant, “architectonic” science, embracing within itself, as a part, that which treats of man as an individual.

From the abstract point of view, thus, ethics is a subdivision of politics. But Aristotle’s treatment of ethics never partook so much of abstract and ultimate philosophy as of practical wisdom. The principle of morality which he consistently set forth was that of a rational choice of the mean between two extremes of conduct. The application of this principle involved the fullest recognition of human free will and led Aristotle often to ascribe to the self-conscious, rational intelligence of the individual the character of self-sufficiency which he had ascribed to the state. Thus, from the practical point of view, at least, ethics was impressed with the character of an independent science. But Aristotle himself was not clear at this point. He often refers to ethics as politics, sometimes intimates that the two are distinct, and in at least one case seems to refer to ethics as a different science2 His uncertainty is illustrated also in the repeated consideration in The Politics3 of the question whether the virtue of the good citizen is the same as that of the good man. His conclusion seems to be, after much vacillation, that the answer is negative in the practical, but affirmative in the ideal or perfect state. Other evidence unites with this conclusion to indicate that Aristotle conceived of politics in a double sense: first, with Plato, as a pure science (σοφία), concerned with the absolute good of man, and the absolute perfect state; second, as a practical science (Άρόνησις), treating of the constitutional and legal relations of actual men in actual societies. In the order of thought, then, politics in the first sense would be prior both to ethics and to politics in the second sense: pure political science would embody the abstract theory of which ethics and practical political science would be two distinct applications. While such seems to have been the thought of the philosopher, his treatment of politics, at least in the works that have come down to us, was almost exclusively, like that of ethics, on the practical side. Hence, whether or not he fully realized the outcome of his work, the separation of the two sciences was definitely accomplished. The abstract ideal politics, in which the norms of individual and social excellence were identical, received only scanty attention and exercised little influence on later thought. But the keen, cold analysis to which he subjected the forms and motives of practical social and political activity gave to reflection on this subject an individuality, a mould and a technique that it was never again to lose.

In the Aristotelian works on ethics are to be found expositions of many of the principles which lie nearest the border line of politics. Justice is defined, and the distinction between distributive and corrective justice, already noticed by Plato, is carefully worked out. The relation of justice to law is examined, and natural (τὸ Άυσικόν) is marked off distinctly from legal right (τὸνομικόν). Equity also (ἡ ἐπιείκεια) is clearly defined as corrective of law. But it is in The Politics that the full and rounded exposition of these principles is to be found, as applied in operations of state life. There are indications that this work embodied originally a comprehensive and well-proportioned plan. As the treatise has come down to us, however, the plan is far from clear and the execution is confused and defective. The text abounds in repetitions, contradictions, obscurities and obvious gaps. This result is probably due, not only to accidents and errors in the transmission of the manuscript through the centuries, but also to the fact that the work never received a final revision by its author. The difficulty of ascertaining Aristotle’s views has further been increased by the very zeal of the modern commentators, who, with the praiseworthy purpose of making the philosopher’s work worthy of his reputation, have emended, conjectured, transposed, elided and inserted with an energy and a diversity that leaves the reader only the impression of hopeless confusion. But without radical editing, the treatise as it stands, with all its imperfections, is as impressive an embodiment of scientific genius and political insight as is the mutilated Vatican torso of the sculptor’s art.

2. The Nature of the State and of the Household

In the first book of The Politics the philosopher sets forth the fundamental characteristics of the state (πόλις). It is an association—an association of human beings—and the highest form of human association. In the order of time it is preceded by the household (οό;κία) and the village (κώμη); in the order of thought it is prior to both. The household has its source in the association of male and female for the propagation of the race and the association of master and slave for the production of subsistence. The village has its source in the association of households for the better satisfaction of their wants. The state springs from the union of villages into an association of such size and character as to be selfsufficing. It is the last and the perfect association. Originating in the bare needs of living, it exists for the sake of complete life. And because the individual can fulfil the end of his existence—can live a complete life—only in the state, Aristotle declares that man is by nature a political animal. This dogma leaves no room for such discussion as has figured in later political theory, of a “state of nature” in which the individual lives a life of blissful isolation from his kind. The being who cannot live in association with his fellows, or who has no need to do this, is, Aristotle says, either on the one hand, a beast, or on the other, a god. There is no place in the philosophy of human phenomena for the consideration of such a being.

This conception of the state in its essential character does not, however, preclude the investigation of the less ultimate forms of association which prevail among men. Historically the πόλις was preceded by conditions in which the household, ruled by the patriarch, was the typical community. In this fact is to be found the explanation of the monarchic government of the earliest states; for the primitive king merely retained through custom the authority of the patriarch. But Aristotle insists that this historical relation of household to state must not be allowed to distort our conception of their logical relation. It is one of his numerous charges against Plato that the latter represented the state to be merely a large household and the ruler of the state to be essentially the head of a family. Such a conception Aristotle holds to be false; state and household differ, not in degree, but in kind. To prove this he enters upon an exhaustive analysis of the household, in the course of which are set forth the philosopher’s views upon many of the fundamental questions of economics.

The main argument is summarily as follows: The household consists of an individual holding dominion over wife, children and property, including slaves. The relation of the head of the household to these three elements is not one, but various. He rules the wife, not as absolute despot, but as constitutional adviser; he rules the children, not as absolute despot, but as the king, who looks to their good rather than his own; while property, both slaves and other, he rules in full despotism, for the exclusive advantage of himself. In this manifold relation of the head of the household to the subordinate elements lies the essential distinction between the household and the state; for in the latter, according to Aristotle, the relation of the ruler to each of the citizens is precisely the same.

This argument, in itself, is not especially striking; it adds nothing to the force of the distinction made in the primary principle, that the household exists for the sake of the physical needs of life, the state for the moral and intellectual needs. But the detailed discussion of the nature and the function of the various elements of the household embodies much that is of high significance in social and economic history and theory. At the very outset he is confronted by the necessity of finding a rational justification for slavery. The slaves constitute one of the natural elements of the household, as he analyzes it. “But some contend,” he says, “that the distinction between slave and freeman is a fact only of law and not of nature, and that it is rooted not in justice but in violence.” To meet this contention he presents the first scientific discussion of the institution in extant literature. He concedes that the relation of master and slave is rational, only if it corresponds to some universal principle of nature. Such a principle is that which requires the combination of command and obedience for the attainment of any human purpose. Men differ from one another in capacity for the one or the other of these functions. There are those whose high endowment of reason fits them to command and direct; there are those whose slight endowment fits them only to comprehend and carry out orders. The former are by nature masters; the latter are by nature slaves. Intellectual strength is the chief characteristic of the former; physical strength, of the latter. The combination of the two is essential to the realization of those purposes for which the household exists; therefore slavery is in accordance with nature. Aristotle is quite aware that the actual institution does not correspond to this rational foundation. He admits that in fact many slaves are superior to their masters in intellect.

This, however, does not affect the reasoning; it is more or less accidental, due, he believes, to the absence of any clearly discernible outward mark by which the natural slave is to be distinguished from the natural master. The common practice of enslaving prisoners of war, Aristotle points out, can find justification only so far as the fact of success in battle can be taken as evidence of the superior intellectual endowment of the victors; but a judgment on this point is subject to many qualifications. Finally, the principle he lays down is the logical foundation of the widespread feeling among the Greeks that they ought to hold in slavery only persons of other races; for the inherent intellectual superiority of Hellenes over barbarians was one of the primary and universal axioms of Greek thought.

As to its animate elements, then, the household is organized with reference to the gradation of intellectual capacity. This capacity exists in the woman in a weaker form and in the child in a less developed form than in the man. In the slave it has no existence whatever. Hence arise the three varieties of paternal dominion, all working for the realization of the highest good of the whole household. As to the inanimate possessions of the household, there is no question of the absolute dominion of the father. Aristotle assumes without examination the validity of the principle of private property. As to methods of acquisition, however, he finds room for much reflection, in the course of which he develops many familiar principles of political economy. The production of wealth has for him no high philosophical significance. He regards it as a more or less disagreeable necessity incidental to the maintenance of life, and hence as a function of the household, but the lowest of its functions. From this point of view he distinguishes between natural and unnatural methods of acquiring wealth. The natural methods, which alone fall within the scope of true economic science (ἡ οίκονομική), are those through which mere necessary subsistence is procured. Among these he enumerates cattle-raising, agriculture and hunting, the last including as subordinate species, fishing, the chase of land animals, and—oddly enough—brigandage (λη + ͅστεία). The unnatural methods of acquisition are those which aim, not at the mere maintenance of life, but at endless accumulation of wealth. These fall within the field of a distinct science, chrematistics (ἡ Χρηματιστική). Of these methods trade, whether in the form of barter or in that of sale for money, may be natural, when pursued merely with a view to procuring necessities of life, and not as an end in itself. But through the use of money to facilitate exchange men have been led to see in money itself the end of trade; and hence has arisen, among other evils, the lending of money at interest. In this practice money is made to reproduce itself instead of being applied to the procurement of the needs of life. Such a mode of acquisition, therefore, has no logical justification and is, he concludes, wholly unnatural.

This discussion of economics is on the whole as remarkable for its weak as for its strong features. The keen analytical faculty which is so characteristic of Aristotle achieves excellent results in shaping the questions that are to be solved. The elementary ideas of production and exchange are fairly presented. He sees clearly enough the distinction between value in use and value in exchange, and the primary function of money has never been better elucidated than by him. But he fails entirely to grasp the notion of capital, and accordingly does not rise above the very primitive and absurd conception of interest. His glaring weakness at this point, and the no less remarkable freak of including brigandage in the normal methods of acquiring wealth, both may be traced back to an ambiguity in his conception of nature (Άύσις). This term has, throughout the history of political theory, proved a stone of stumbling to philosophers. Aristotle, however, at the beginning of The Politics, assigns to the word a clear and unambiguous meaning; namely, a condition of perfect development of all potentialities. But here at the end of the first book he evidently thinks of it as denoting a primitive and undeveloped condition. In one place man is political by nature, because the state is characteristic of fully developed humanity. In the other place brigandage is a natural method of obtaining wealth, because it is a practice of undeveloped men, and the taking of interest is not natural because, apparently, it is not found among undeveloped men.

3. Organization of the State: Constitution, Citizenship, Government

In approaching the consideration of the constitution which shall most faithfully embody the true principles of political science, Aristotle first examines critically those systems, whether actual or theoretical, which have attained a general reputation for excellence. In the second book of The Politics, the constitutions of Sparta, Crete and Carthage, and the actual or projected legislation of distinguished thinkers, like Hippodamus, Phaleas and Solon, are described and their most conspicuous features commented upon. But the first place in the book is devoted to a severe, and at times distinctly unfair, criticism of Plato’s ideas, as embodied in The Republic and The Laws. From the standpoint and with the method adopted by Aristotle, it is a matter of no great difficulty to exhibit many weaknesses in the Platonic theories. But probably the most significant feature of the critique is the attack on the philosophic supports of communism. Aristotle concedes that unity is of fundamental importance in any conception of the state, but the means advocated by Plato for attaining it he holds to be destructive of the end in view. Thus, Plato says that if a man does not know his own children, he will feel an equally high affection for all the children in the state. But, answers Aristotle, the sense of personal possession is the whole basis of affection; therefore the result will be, not great love for all, but no love for any. Again, the degree of harmony to be expected from community of property is less than that from a régime of individual ownership; for, he argues, the disputes that arise among persons having joint interests are notoriously frequent and distressing, and without private property there would be no room for the establishment of those valuable social bonds which accompany the exercise of liberality, in accordance with the saying that all things are in common among friends. The Platonic reasoning is, in fact, vitiated from the outset by an erroneous conception of the unity that is essential to the state. It is not a unity which consists in the obliteration of all diversities in individuals. Such a conception is fatal to the idea of the state, as identity in musical tones is fatal to the idea of harmony. The unity of the state is that which arises out of the proper organization of relations among individuals who differ f...

Table of contents

• INSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF GREEK THEORY
• THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO
• THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE
• POLITICAL THEORY OF LATER GREECE AND OF ROME
• THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIÆVAL INSTITUTIONS
• POLITICAL THEORY IN THE EARLY CHURCH
• THEORIES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL HEGEMONY
• ST. THOMAS AQUINAS AND HIS SCHOOL
• THEORIES DURING THE DECLINE OF THE PAPAL HEGEMONY
• THE PASSING OF THE MIDDLE AGE
• MACHIAVELLI