In looking at what way, and for what reasons, Aristotle thinks that "the middle class" is of political importance it is evident that there are a variety of factors related to his conclusion. He understood the need to promote a class that could bridge the divide between the rich and the poor in order to establish a more considerate framework for the promotion of specific values and policies on behalf of the government. Aristotle understood the need to promote economic growth in order to maintain a higher level of political order. He argued that both governments ruled by the rich and those ruled by the poor were unlikely to come to terms with those of differing economic certainties. For this reason, it is necessary to establish a class that is able to overcome the limitations of both of their competing interests. Aristotle believed that the middle class was of political importance due to the connection that he saw between the growth of the middle class and a heightened level of rationality in regards to the decisions that were made in the name of the state.
The middle class was a central concept within Aristotle's political philosophy. He believed that the rich and the poor should be made to work together through discordant political systems in order to create a single unified whole. In doing so, the differences between classes would be essentially dissolved as the middle class expanded. Aristotle believed that the middle class was essential for “introducing and maintaining a democratic political system.” His work demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between social well-being and the capacity for democratic governance. Furthermore, he presented challenges to other forms of rule that were primarily focused on giving power to a single class. Instead, he understood the necessity of establishing a political order that could account for the ability to create a good life for the largest number of people. He saw that there was an underlying connection “between the level of socioeconomic development and the likelihood of democracy.” He understood the role that the middle class plays in helping the transition from societies dominated by upper or lower class citizens to those dominated by a majority. This could be done through the promotion of economic prosperity and rights to people of lower classes. “Socioeconomic development implies the growth of the middle class, an important role in the transition to democracy.” The development of citizens that are educated and well-off enough to have free time to devote towards service to the state is necessary in the implementation of methods to ensure prosperity. It is therefore evident, in the eyes of Aristotle, that “the growth of the middle class [is] a facilitating factor in the emergence and consolidation of democracy.” In order to establish this, it is necessary to understand where Aristotle stood in relation to the upper and lower classes that he believed must be overtaken in order for the middle class to gain a political advantage.
Within Aristotle's political philosophy, there is a fundamental need to come to a compromise regarding the upper and lower classes. This is due to the unending struggle that results from these two forces having control of a state. In this sense, it is evident that Aristotle is aware of the fact that the most beneficial society would be “a mixed polity containing elements of democracy of the poor and elements of oligarchy of the rich.” This demonstrates that he understood the relation between economic well-being and political governance within a polity. These two elements work to determine the overall outcome that a state will take in its path towards governance. It is therefore evident that he understood “the form of government is causally linked directly to the class structure of any given society.” There are fundamental issues with having a society ruled by either the upper or lower classes. These issues would inevitably result in tensions between the rich and the poor. In regards to the poor, they would likely be more subservient to those that would provide them with short term solutions to their problems. Aristotle believed that a society ruled by the poor would “tend to follow a tyrannical leader who would give them immediate economic relief.” This would have profound consequences for the autonomy of the state and its ability to make decisions in an unbiased way. On the other hand, if the rich were to rule they would be “unwilling to compromise about sharing their wealth with the poor.” Rule by the rich would likely result in profound disparities between those that have wealth and those that do not. For this reason, Aristotle believed that it was essential to “enable the poor to rise to near middle class status.” In doing so, a compromise can be made between the needs of the poor and the desires of the rich. These fundamental differences can be overcome by the creation of a class that bridges this divide. In this sense it is evidnet that Aristotle understood that “the larger the middle class, the closer the given society approaches the situation of classlessness.” In the establishment of a classless society the polity can focus more on what is important to the prosperity of the state as a whole.
The importance of the middle class also extends to the ability for those that belong to it to participate in various democratic processes. In order to make rational decisions regarding the policies of the state it is necessary to first meet specific criteria. Education and a basic standard of living are necessary in order for these individuals to participate. The work of Aristotle therefore “stresses active citizen participation in government.” Aristotle believed that government was a natural extend of man, which was a result of his rational nature. The advent of the state therefore belongs to all men. Aristotle argued that “that man is by nature a political animal.” The development of society is, fundamentally, a result of the need for people to work together in order to attain a specific end. This end might is, in most cases, survival, but can extend to various areas of life. This is evident in looking at the way that Aristotle viewed the natural human. He argues that the rise of the politic is the result of the fact that “individuals form communities to secure the necessities of life.” Cooperation is a result of this self-interest, which is dictated in the need for government itself. Aristotle argued that it was necessary for people to be free in order for democracy to work. “A free man possesses certain traits of character that allow him to govern himself responsibly and attain happiness.” This capacity is necessary in order for people to govern themselves effectively. Only in the middle class can this level of prosperity be obtained for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, in response to the collectivist principles advocated by Plato, “Aristotle defends private families, private property, and private enterprise.” In order for this privacy to be maintained, it is necessary to extend the middle class. Aristotle is, in this sense, concerned with the principles of distributive justice. His arguments demonstrate his belief that “equally worthy people should be equally happy, and unequally worthy people should be unequally happy.” In establishing a strong middle class the capacity for the state to more efficiently administer justice in a moral and ethical way can be expanded. Furthermore, the capacity to self-govern is fundamentally related to his idea of the state. For this reason, his very definition of government is related to the idea of the middle class. “Aristotle also defines polity as rule by the middle class.” In promoting the freedom of the individual and the ability for a larger portion of the population to attain an education and a certain level of prosperity the expansion of the middle class can be an effective way to stabilize society. This is essentially the result of providing a compromise between the ongoing tensions of the rich, who do not want to give up their wealth, and the poor, who need them to. “Aristotle makes it clear that political rule can exist only where the populace consists of men who are free, that is, sufficiently virtuous that they can rule themselves.” For this reason, the middle class becomes the epitome of his expression of the natural human. This is the result of the expansion of his idea of family and how it relates to the establishment of a polity and social system.
Aristotle's philosophy, as opposed to Plato's was primarily concerned with the natural, physical, world and the biological and social processes that compromised the natural world and the polis. In order to better understand these concepts he spent much of his time analyzing these elements in their natural state. “Rather than look at the ideal city, or the city in speech, Aristotle looks at actual cities and their constitutions, their achievements, and failures.” He viewed the polis as fundamentally related to the natural world, as it was an extension of the natural inclinations of mankind. For this reason, his idea of the middle class is inherently connected to his notion of community and society. In his view, the establishment of social order is in the pursuit of some objective good. For Aristotle, the polis was considered to be “a community or an association of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good.” In regards to this, his philosophic arguments dictate that there is a natural idea that the political pursuits of humanity are based on. For him, this becomes the family. The family, for Aristotle, was the natural basis for the creation of the state. “Aristotle acknowledges that the family is more natural than the polis.” Due to the natural basis of the family, the state is able to be an extension of the family, although in a more abstract form. His idea of the state is therefore inherently connected to his understanding of the purpose of a family in relation to the natural world. “Through its relationship to the family, which is clearly a natural association, the city exists by nature.” The family, therefore, represents an association between individuals of differing states of being. The capacity for a family to compromise with one another in order to gain certain advantages in nature suggests that humanity has the same capacity in relation to the development of the state. The family therefore expresses the potential for humanity to overcome the natural barriers that it encounters through compromise. This can be associated to his idea of the middle class as well. For Aristotle, the ideals of the family are embodied in the middle class.
Aristotle presented an understanding of the middle class in his political philosophy that has, since its inception, been regarded as a fundamentally important doctrine. This is due to the level of stability hat can be obtained from the growth of the middle class. The values of those that are able to maintain a moderate standard of living are able to maintain a rational understanding of the most beneficial policies that a polity should take. This is due to the perspective that these individuals have regarding their place in the world. Aristotle's idea of the middle class is, in this way, an important doctrine in regards to his understanding of political theory and the implementation of the good for society. For Aristotle, the middle class is of political importance due to the advantages that can be obtained from promoting its overall growth.
Bibliography
Aristotle. Aristotle's Politics: A Treatise on Government. Volume 55 of Sir John Lubbock's hundred books. Cambridge University Press, (1895): 284.
Barro, Robert J. Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy 107, No. 6 (1999): 158-183.
Glassman, Ronald M. The Middle Class and Democracy in Socio-Historical Perspective. (New Jersey: Brill): 1995. 434.
Hittinger, John. Plato and Aristotle on the Family and the Polis. The Saint Anselm Journal 8, No. 2 (2013): 22.
Johnson, Gregory R. The First Founding Father: Aristotle on Freedom and Popular Government. Hoover Press : Machan (Democracy). Rev. 2. 29-59.
Ozbudun, Erugun. “The Role of the Middle Class in the Emergence and Consolidation of a Democratic Civil Society.” Ankara Law Review 2, No. 2 (2005): 95-107.
