ARISTOTLE’S POLITICAL NATURALISM

Aristotle lays the foundations for his political theory in his writings of ‘Politics Book I’ by arguing that the ‘polis’ or polis, and political rule are “natural”. His argument begins with a historical account of the development of polis out of simpler communities. First, individual human beings combined in pairs because they could not exist apart from as they had to reproduce. Then subsequently, a household arose, then a village emerged from many households coming together to serve daily needs and finally, a polis, or “the complete community”, which comes into existence for the sake of life, and exists for the sake of the good life. According to Aristotle. the pre-polis communities (i.e. the household and the village) are formally equivalent to the polis suggesting that the village, the household, and the polis are the three stages in the development (or growth) of one thing, namely the polis. That is, households and villages are essentially the same (they contain the same form) as the polis, though they are underdeveloped. It follows that the pre-polis communities are simply underdeveloped poleis or smaller human communities that contain the same form as the polis, but they have not yet reached their full potential as poleis.

The account Aristotle gives of the origin of the polis is important from a historical perspective. Aristotle is alluding to other accounts of prehistory, and he is revealing a cyclical theory of history that is relevant to his political thought.

Aristotle defends three claims about nature and the polis: First, the polis exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end because it alone attains self-sufficiency. Second, human beings are by nature political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice which are formative of the household and polis. Third, the polis is naturally prior to the individuals, because individuals cannot perform their natural functions apart from the polis, since they are not self-sufficient. Let us examine each of these claims one by one.

Existence of Polis by nature

In the History of Animals, Aristotle distinguishes between solitary and herding or gregarious animals. Of gregarious animals, Aristotle mentioned animals such as bees, pigeons, and ants. Importantly, some gregarious animals are political like the cranes, and ants. What separates sporadic animals (pigeons, swans) from political animals is that political animals work cooperatively toward some single end. In this way, Aristotle uses this premise to conclude that “men, even when they do not require one another’s help, desire to live together”. This, it seems, reiterates that humans are a gregarious species that cooperate to achieve some common end.

That man is capable of living in a solitary manner does not mean, however, that he can fully realize his telos in this form of life. Telos is an inherent purpose that determines not only what the thing is but also what it can become and how it will behave under a particular condition. For example, it is part of the physis of a plant seed that it can become a tree. This does not mean that the seed is already in some way a tree but rather the seed has the potential to be a tree and under the right conditions will develop into such a tree. The telos of the seed will be fully realized only when it becomes a tree; its potential will be actualized only in that situation. Similarly, man is for Aristotle “naturally” political in the sense of his physis. It is not that he is always and inevitably political, but being what he is, he has the capacity to be political under the right circumstances and he reaches the full realization of his nature, full fruition only in being political.

There are for him, so it appears, three characteristics that make gregarious animals into political beings in the fullest sense: (1) that they direct themselves to a common end, (2) that they live under a ruler, and (3) that they live in settled conditions. While some gregarious animals exhibit one or the other of these characteristics and can therefore be called political in a partial or weak sense, the most fully political among them will have all three characteristics which certainly holds for man. Aristotle decides that as the most superior animal, humans will be the most superior political animal, and in turn the most political of political animals. The polis proves the correctness of this view.

Human beings are political by nature

Aristotle claimed that nature makes nothing in vain. Then, he claims that nature has given humans (and only humans) the capacity for speech. Implied here is the idea that a natural capacity for speech must have some purpose since any useless natural capacity would be given in vain. Aristotle proceeds to discuss the purpose of speech- that without it, we could not discern the just and unjust. Thus, it follows that humans alone can discern justice. Given these premises, the rest follows that humans are the only animal capable of discerning justice, so they are the only animal capable of making poleis. Hence, humans are the most political animal.

What distinguishes man from other living beings is thus on Aristotle’s account, not something anatomical or physiological — such as a set of genes — but our possession of language or reason (logos). By declaring man to have logos Aristotle meant to say that humankind can use words, can make statements, can construct and understand arguments, can be literate, can wield concepts, and can grasp general principles of both theoretical and normative sorts. Logos is, however, most significantly the capacity to make distinctions. Through logos, man is enabled to deliberate specifically on the distinction between what is good and what is bad (in a broad and not necessarily “moral” sense). This ability is responsible for the specifically human element in our politics. Though Aristotle believed undoubtedly that being political is a characteristic of humankind as a whole, it is also important to note that he also thought that only the adult males are actually in a position to realize this political potential. He believed children’s skills of reasoning weren’t developed enough and that women did not have enough “authority” to be an active member of the polis.

Polis is prior to individuals by nature

When Aristotle declares man to be a political animal his crucial point is that man is by nature a polis dweller, someone who will find perfection only within a polis, in being part of the life of a polis. He enlarges on this by writing that “he who is without a polis, by reason of his nature and not of some accident, is either a poor sort of being or a being higher than man.” Humans need the polis and its life to be fully human.

Succinctly, he writes of the polis that “it comes to be for the sake of living, but it remains in existence for the sake of living well.” The polis is, thus, for Aristotle both a practical necessity and also a “moral” institution, the place where questions of justice are raised and settled. “Justice is a political matter,” as Aristotle puts it once again succinctly. “For justice is the organization of a political community.”

The Aristotelian formula embodies thus, as we can see now, a rich conception of politics which is sharply distinct from our modern, minimalist one. According to Aristotle, human beings require for their fulfillment not just politics in the narrowly modern sense of the word; they need the whole rich life of the polis of which government is only one part — though a crucial one. Aristotle writes at the start of book seven of Politics that the determination of the best form of government requires us to get clear first of all about “which life is most worthy of choice.” He considers this claim compelling because he is certain that “the best life, both for the individual separately and for the polis collectively, is a life of virtue sufficiently equipped with the resources needed to take part in virtuous actions.

Aristotle is, hence, pointing to the polis as the model example of what can be achieved through natural cooperation; the polis is the pinnacle of natural social achievement in the animal kingdom. Humans are superior not only because they alone are capable of artificial production; they are superior because even their natural cooperativeness excels above other animals.

Soon after, he states that the polis comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life. The theme that the good life or happiness is the proper end of the polis recurs throughout his philosophies regarding humans and its nature.

Thus, in conclusion, man is a political animal, or -

“Anthropos physei politikon zoon.”