POLITICAL BY NATURE
Abstract
In Politics, Aristotle made one of his most famous and controversial contentions by calling man a “political animal.” The philosopher contended that man’s social inclinations created the polis, which he considered an organic entity. For Aristotle, just as man is composed of parts without which he cannot live, the polis is comprised of its own essential elements, such as the household and its individual inhabitants. Only through a communal existence can man hope to find law, justice, sustenance, shelter and the opportunity to live what Aristotle called “the good life” amid aesthetic beauty.
Any assessment of Aristotle’s philosophy concerning the polis and man’s political nature reveals that man and the polis exist to serve each other. As Aristotle argued, it is man’s ability to reason and communicate that separates him from brute animals and makes possible the invention and maintenance of the polis. Thus, it is important to note that Aristotle regarded the state as much more than a place where man can be safe, nourished and employed; where he may expect to find shelter and companionship. Indeed, the society of which Aristotle conceived was as much an idea as it was a physical design, a place where human beings could expect to lead fulfilling lives and create and live among beautiful things. “Every city is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think is good” (Aristotle, Bk. 1, Ch. 1).
The differences between the Greek polis of Aristotle’s understanding and the massive cities of today are simple matters of population, of space and of services that help man survive and thrive. The ancient Greek society, which was based on the notion of koinonia, or partnership, has been lost to us for centuries. Aristotle’s polis was a place where people worked together for the betterment of the whole, where service to the state was assumed. It is this “contract” that has been broken by modern man who, having limited his civic responsibility to the annual payment of taxes, hampers the ability of the individual to help create a society that can offer those benefits that make life worth living. Aristotle said that it was man’s intellect and ability to reason and converse that makes him “political.” This means to be political means to use one’s intellect to further the interests of one’s community and, by extension, one’s own interests.
Nature, Aristotle tells us, has made man a political animal by endowing him with certain qualities. As such, man is the only creature endowed with the gift of speech, which is concerned with revealing “that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other herd animals” the (Aristotle Bk. 1, Ch. 2). When a man is cut off from social interaction with his fellow humans, that individual may understand and appreciate the concepts of right and wrong, justice and injustice, but they will remain mere abstractions without the community that gives them meaning within the greater context of the polis. It is the same with man’s need for aesthetic beauty – only as part of a group can he imagine and create an environment in which beauty and nobility equal the good life.
Mankind and the polis in which he chooses to live are the sums of many parts. Just as a human cannot live without lungs, a heart or kidneys, so the polis cannot exist without its institutional components which, in turn, are comprised of even more elemental human parts. In his Politics, Aristotle makes his point by showing how the polis can be broken down into its various elements, and how each of these depends upon the others. One such example is his illustration of the household, the basic organic unit of the polis. “Since it is evident out of what parts the city is constituted, it is necessary first to speak of household management; for every city is composed of households” (Aristotle 1984, p. 38). Aristotle goes on to explain that the parts of “household management” exist in relation to the parts of which the household itself is made (Aristotle Bk. 1, Ch. 2).
Thus, the components of a household, the husband, wife and other inhabitants, are components of the polis. All of this arises from nature. Since “nature makes nothing that is incomplete or purposeless, nature must necessarily have made all of these for the sake of human beings” (Aristotle 1984, p.45). While there are those who have criticized this anthropocentric perspective, it makes sense within the greater context of Aristotle’s philosophy. Just as nature has supplied man with everything he needs to live, it has also provided everything he needs to be political, having made him simultaneously capable of being part of the whole, as well as the sum of its parts. “For nature makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses” (Aristotle Bk. 1, Ch. 2). Thus, the polis and its parts imitate nature itself, which is composed of large networks of parts that add up to a greater whole.
Aristotle goes on to explain that humans are unable to act as a “part” independent of the whole. This inability to survive as an animal, to be self-sufficient outside the bounds of organized society, proves his political nature. It also shows that he is dangerous when “separated from law and justice” for the same reasons that he is inclined to be political: his intellect, which he may use for good ends or ill. Aristotle argued that community amounts to more than human beings banding together because they have mutual needs. The existence of beauty in nature, and of man’s capacity for identifying and appreciating beauty, imbues society with an organically derived desire to achieve something more than the efficiency of an orderly society. A reasoning, communal human being is dually oriented, Aristotle argued, and as such is driven to group together. Aristotle argued that “an impulse toward living in this sort of partnership is implanted in all human beings by nature, andhe who first founded the city was the greatest of benefactors” (Aristotle Bk. 1, Ch. 2).
Aristotle assures us that political man is driven to live together because, as a gregarious animal born with the knowledge of good vs. evil, and with innate aesthetic sensibilities, only in the company of others can he hope to fulfill his myriad needs. In other words, the only way a man can reach moral, ethical and material fulfillment is by coming together to forge the polis, in which all are meant to play a part. Aristotle’s idea, then, is that man is driven to be political in order to fulfill all of the needs that we define as “social,” meaning both the utilitarian and spiritual. Aristotle contends that the ultimate goal of political living is to live well, which for Aristotle is defined as “the work of affection” in which all strive to attain both temporal and spiritual fulfillment: “The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together” (Aristotle 1984, p. 99).
Critics have argued that Aristotle’s arguments are naïve and vague. Some have contended that Aristotle is a victim of his own reasoning, and that the state is something that man creates out of his own imagination and physical vigor. As such, it is not an organic outgrowth of nature, as Aristotle theorized. This anti-Aristotelian argument contends that man is the sole natural actor in the creation of the polis; man, as a natural being, requires shelter and safety, so he used his intellect to protect himself. Yet it is the sheer social characteristic of the polis to which Aristotle refers, the interpersonal communication that is constantly taking place and which creates an entity that is organic because it creates its own self-sustaining identity.
Thus, Aristotle insists that man is political and the polis is a natural outgrowth of man’s political nature not because it reflects man’s desire for shelter and sustenance but because it allows man to strive for “the good life,” for a higher state of being that builds his spiritual side. This, Aristotle asserts, can only be achieved within a social environment that can only exist within the polis. Therefore, man is drawn together by common cause.
And so humans are drawn together for mutual advantage because they have the intelligence and the capacity to communicate using their intelligence. This is a natural phenomenon, producing in men the desire to pool their resources for the common good. But being gregarious and intelligent, humans possess a natural desire for more than subsistence, a desire arising from the impulse to create, to live a life of beauty and nobility, and to draw nearer to the universe. Indeed, the human impulse to draw nearer to the infinite has been expressed in religious artwork and craftsmanship in every culture. The logic of Aristotle’s argument is that men create and express an appreciation for beauty through their natural tendency to be political.
Today, residents of a particular city are apt to live there for economic reasons. Acquisitiveness and materialism have long since replaced civic duty and the search for aesthetic beauty as the primary motivating factors for citizens, whose sole responsibilities are to obey the law and pay their taxes. Nevertheless, man remains a political animal in the same sense that Aristotle proposed the concept more than 2000 years ago.
References
Aristotle & Lord, C. (1984). The Politics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 37-38, 45, 99.
Aristotle, Jowett, B. & Davis, H.W.C. (2008). Politics. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc., p. 29.
