Page 37 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 3: Aristotle’s Life and His Conception of Human Nature and State

excessive regimentation and the cessation of the state as a political association. A state was Notes
essentially a plural and diverse institution encouraging and cultivating a rich social life. Social
differentiation was the key ordering principle of a good, stable state. Aristotle pointed out that the
absence of plurality of aims and viewpoints did not purify politics. On the contrary it destroyed
it. He did not reject the Platonic belief that every political community should be guided by the
highest good, but he disagreed with Plato by insisting that a community should recognize and
promote other goods as well.
Aristotle proceeded to examine the social institutions that Plato advocated in his scheme of the
Ideal State, namely the community of wives and property. The unity that Plato desired, according
to Aristotle, was more appropriate for a household rather than for a state. Within a family there
were three kinds of relationships, while a state had just one kind of relationship: between the
governed and the governors. Unlike the family, the state was an aggregation of different kinds of
individuals. Aristotle contended that the role of the statesman could not be confused with that of
a slave owner or the head of the family, for the statesman’s role, unlike that of the husband and
master, was a political one. Aristotle separated the political from the non-political, a distinction
which Locke and the liberals subsequently incorporated and made it the cornerstone of liberalism.
As far as the community of wives was concerned, Aristotle felt that the Platonic scheme did not
improve traditional family ties, for none would feel responsible for others in the absence of personal
care and affection. Altruism was only possible if it was an extension of self-love. The good of the
many had to be based on the good of the self. In Plato’s scheme, the whole notion of personal love
got diluted in the absence of real feeling and due to general indifference and neglect:
What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most
attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate, they
care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned.
Instead of being cared for by one’s father, it was quite possible to be ignored by so many “fathers”.
Furthermore, kinship became merely fractional. If a thousand were fathers to a child, then each
father would be merely one-thousandth of a father. Therefore, “it is better to be own cousin to a
man than to be his son after the Platonic fashion”.
Fraternity, for Aristotle, was important for it would be the best bulwark not only against civil
dissensions, but also against deviant tendencies like incest, parricide and fratricide. In order to
care and feel affection for a person, it was necessary that a person belonged to one, a feeling that
one liked. Under the Platonic scheme, both were totally ruled out. Furthermore, the transposition
of ranks that Plato advocated could not be carried through anonymously. For Aristotle, the scheme
of community of wives and property would lead to a one-person state, obliterating social
differentiation. In the absence of divergent elements making different contributions, even self-
sufficiency would be lost:
A household is an institution which attains a greater degree of self-sufficiency than an
individual can; and a polis, in turn, is an institution which attains self sufficiency to a
greater degree than a household. But it only attains that goal, and becomes fully a
polis, when the association which forms it is large enough (and diversified enough) to
be self-sufficing. On the assumption, therefore that the higher degree of self sufficiency
is the more desirable thing, the lesser degree of unity is more desirable than the
greater.
Aristotle regarded the family as a natural institution, to abolish which would be detrimental to
both the individual and society. The fact that the family, along with the institution of property,
had stood the test of time was a proof of their usefulness. Even for the wisest, family and material
possessions were cherished for their intrinsic worth and the happiness they gave. A family helped
the individual to develop his very best, by inculcating civic duties and personal love, contributing

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 31