Aristotle's Politics: Book Two - Note on Unity, Property, and Governance
Overview of Major Themes in Aristotle's Politics: Book Two
The primary themes of the second book of Aristotle's Politics concern the following areas:
The unity of a city.
The ways in which property either supports or detracts from the unity of a people.
The flaws inherent in the political structure of Sparta.
Additional topics including democracy, education, the threat of revolution, and the effectiveness of laws.
Geographic and Political Context:
Aristotle resided in Athens.
Sparta was a neighboring Greek city-state, though located some distance from Athens.
Athens and Sparta were frequently at odds with one another and often in direct conflict.
Nature of the Text:
The book is not seen as a sustained, singular argument.
It is a collection of lecture notes, often described as a "hodgepodge" of thoughts.
It consists of fragmentary ideas and occasional arguments that require effort to discern.
Unity and Plurality in the Political Unit
Comparison with Plato’s Republic:
Plato appealed to the principle of unity, arguing that unity within a city was paramount.
In Plato's view, almost any law or practice, including the dissemination of myths, lies, and mass manipulation, was welcome or essential if it fostered the unity of a perfectly just city.
Aristotle agrees that unity is important, but his view differs from Plato in that he believes the importance of unity does not extend very far.
The Concept of Plurality and Diversity:
Aristotle’s political thought focuses on the value of plurality, which can be understood as disunity or diversity.
Modern theorists often view Aristotle as having a more grounded, informed, and sophisticated understanding of political challenges compared to the abstract thought experiments of Plato.
While Aristotle views Plato’s Republic as a thought experiment characterized by humor and jokes, Aristotle attempts to bring political theory "down to earth" to address recalcitrant human problems.
Limits of Disunity:
Perfect disunity in a city is impossible because the constitution of a city is by definition an association.
Members must share a common locality, creating at least a thin bond or relationship.
An atomized group of people cannot be considered a city even if they live in close proximity; some degree of unity is unavoidable.
Limits of Unity:
A city cannot enjoy perfect unity because perfect unity exists only in an isolated individual.
An individual cannot constitute a city by themselves.
The Distinction Between the Family and the City
Degrees of Unity:
A family is an association that is more unified than a city.
This unity is not based on numerical size. For example, a family of people would still possess more unity than a city of people.
The difference lies in the attachment members have to one another rather than the population count.
Plurality as a Defining Characteristic:
A large family can form a village or a collection of villages, but it cannot form a city.
A city, by definition, must be composed of "different kinds of people."
Natural versus Political Ties:
Natural Ties: These bind families together. They are based on emotional and natural bonds that facilitate agreement even during disagreements. Aristotle considers these "not politically interesting" because they do not require political thought or operation; they are compelling by nature.
Political Ties: The city exists among people who have no natural ties. Members are essentially strangers.
Complexity of the City:
In a city, one can have political relationships with family members, creating a conflict where a political attitude (like disagreement) clashes with a familial tie.
In a family, structures of clarity often emerge from authority (e.g., a parent pounding a fist to demand loyalty), but in a city, the basis of authority is less clear and more challenging.
The city performs a uniting function that is not analogous to the natural bonding of a family; it binds different people together through political means that are not yet entirely defined but are distinct from nature.
Property and City Unity
Issues of Common Ownership:
Aristotle asks whether all things in a city should be owned in common.
His conclusion is that it is a "difficult business" to live together and share any activity, but sharing property is especially difficult.
He highlights the potential for conflict as the primary deterrent to common ownership.
The Free-Rider and Maintenance Problem:
Things owned in common are often neglected. Only some will care for the property, while most will focus on absorbing the benefits.
Example of the Common Road: Many will use the road because it is useful, but few will voluntarily perform the hard labor of filling potholes or removing trees. This leads to an unequal share of labor and enjoyment.
Conflict in Shared Management:
Aristotle observes that those who own common property and share in its management are "far more at variance" (in disagreement) than those who hold property separately.
While shared property might theoretically inspire a sense of friendship, history and observation suggest it actually invites unresolvable disagreements.
The Role of Custom and Law:
Shared property only results in conflict when it lacks "the embellishment of social customs and enactment of proper laws."
Aristotle suggests that a legislator could potentially avoid these conflicts through education, training citizens to value sharing property.
He notes that while common ownership might work in a city with a specific culture or "style," it is not the style of Ancient Greece and thus would not work for his immediate community.
The Value of Private Property
Pleasure and Fulfillment:
Owning property makes an "inexpressible difference" regarding pleasure.
Aristotle believes that the use and consumption of things that belong to oneself alone provides greater fulfillment than the use of shared goods.
Generosity and Kindness:
Private property is essential for the exercise of generosity. One can only perform kindnesses—such as helping friends, guests, or comrades—if one owns property privately.
In an "excessively unified" city with no private property, no one can show themselves to be generous because generosity consists of the proper use of one's own holdings.
Aristotle argues that neglecting private ownership leads to a deprivation of the joy of contributing from one’s private stock to the well-being of others.
Conflict and Adversity:
The conclusion is that a life where all property is shared is "utterly impossible" for people with the culture of Athens.
Fellowship via Private Property:
Private property is not a selfish institution if joined by "moral goodness."
Aristotle cites the proverb "Friends' goods are goods in common."
Example of Sparta: In Sparta, men use one another’s slaves, horses, and dogs as if they were their own, yet the property remains private. This proves that private property and political fellowship can coexist and provide the same benefits as common ownership without the same potential for conflict.
Inequality and the Problem of Redistribution
Challenges of Unequal Ownership:
Even if private property is established, conflict emerges from unequal amounts of property and the unequal opportunities that result.
The Mechanism of Wealth Limits:
One proposed solution is setting a limit on the amount of wealth any citizen or family can accumulate.
Excess wealth would be taken by the legislator and distributed to those furthest below the maximum limit.
Aristotle’s Critique of Redistribution:
Aristotle tests this view and argues it will not reduce political conflict.
He claims that taking even a small amount from the wealthy reduces them from comfort to "penury" (extreme poverty) in their own perception.
Those deprived of their wealth will become revolutionaries, seeking to overthrow the government.
Aristotle is criticized for ignoring the potential for conflict stemming from the poor themselves; he focuses exclusively on the anger of the rich while ignoring how the needs of the poor might also cause disunity.
Aristotle’s Speculative Criminology
Crime and Economic Need:
Aristotle grants that redistributing wealth might reduce crimes committed solely for the fulfillment of basic needs (e.g., stealing to avoid hunger).
Beyond Basic Necessities:
Crimes are often not motivated by necessity but by other factors:
The "thrill" of breaking the law.
The desire for luxury goods that go beyond basic needs.
"Superfluities": The most heinous crimes are committed for refined or particularized desires.
The Failure of Redistribution to Stop Crime:
To stop crime via redistribution, the city would have to provide not just beans for the hungry (e.g., Petra) but luxury items like a "PS five" for those with refined desires (e.g., Sam).
It would be absurd to provide luxuries in proportion to the refinement of a citizen's desires, and it would remain ineffective because the temptation of the "thrill" remains.
The Solution through Training:
Aristotle’s solution to crime is education and training:
The "better sort of people" are trained to have no desire to over-accumulate wealth.
The "poor people" are trained to be accepting of their "inferior station."
Laws, Generality, and Authority
The Practicality of Reform:
Unlike medicine, where improvements are constantly adopted, Aristotle is cautious about replacing old laws with new ones.
He believes changes should only occur if the existing law is "intolerably unjust" and the remedy is "easily instituted."
General versus Particular Laws:
Aristotle recommends that written laws be recorded only in general terms.
Overly particularized laws become outdated quickly and cannot adapt to changing political circumstances.
General, vaugely expressed laws allow legislators and judges to tailor rules to specific cases. This carries a risk of corruption and unfair application, but Aristotle deems this risk preferable to the defects of overly specific laws.
The Source of Law’s Strength:
A law has no source of strength for securing obedience other than habit.
Habit is created only by the passage of time and "raw exposure and repetition."
The Risk of Frequent Change:
Changing laws frequently erodes the habit of obedience and weakens the general power of the law.
It is often better to endure an unjust law than to change it, because reform reveals that laws are man-made. To maintain authority, laws must appear sacred, inviolable, and unalterable.
Leisure and the Laboring Classes
The Necessity of Leisure:
Leisure, or "freedom from the necessity of labor," is a necessary condition for achieving human excellence.
The Problem of Securing Leisure:
Securing leisure for the ruling class requires others to perform labor.
Aristotle identifies a problem with "serfs" (servants who are free but of low political status):
If given too much freedom ("loose rein"), they become insolent and view themselves as equals to respectable citizens.
If treated too harshly, they fall into conspiracy and hatred of the wealthy classes.
Slaves vs. Free Commoners:
Aristotle believes the threat of revolt from the poor is not significant enough to require good people to do their own dirty labor.
He distinguishes between slaves and free commoners. In his view, slaves are not a political problem because they lack resentment and the capacity for higher aspirations. Free persons, however, are capable of resentment and represent a potential for political disunity.
Aristotle’s Definition of Democracy
Contrast with Modern Definitions:
Today, democracy is generally viewed as "rule by all the people" (though even modern versions exclude certain residents).
For Aristotle, democracy is a more restrictive and "ruinous" form of association.
The Spartan "Epharet" (Ephors):
Aristotle classifies Sparta as having become "democratic" because of the Epharet.
The Epharet is a political office filled by a small number of commoners (citizens who are free but not wealthy) chosen at random.
The Spartan system originally intended for the King and the Council of Elders to hold power, using the Epharet to give commoners the illusion of representation.
Inexplicably, the Epharet came to exercise a disproportionate influence, effectively running the city.
Defining the Democratic Nature:
For Aristotle, a city is democratic if it is ruled by "some number of commoners greater than ."
He defines commoners as people who lack training and education in political matters, poetry, and philosophy because they lack the necessary leisure to pursue them.
Since commoners must labor to survive daily, Aristotle views them as inherently unfit to rule and incapable of ruling well.