Page 40 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes shared by Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859). He conceded to the greater populace participation
and did not, like Plato, make it restrictive. He accepted constitutional rule “not as a concession to
human frailty but as an intrinsic part of good government and therefore a characteristic of an ideal
state”. A stable government for Aristotle was one which recognized the individual’s right to
property and human freedom. In the Ethics, he was respectful of the opinions and views of the old
and wise, and even asserted that consensus constituted ethical truth. In the Politics, he placed great
merit on the judgement of the many, their collective virtue and collective capacity, their entitlement
to rule and respect for popular opinion.

3.2 Conception of Human Nature and State

The state, according to Aristotle, was the highest form of political union, for it represented the
pinnacle of social evolution. It was necessary, for it provided a framework for the satisfaction of
basic wants and also ensured a means to secure and realize good life in a uniquely human sense.
An individual found fulfilment from the advantages made possible by a state through its common
endeavours, and one who did not feel its need was either an “angel” or a “beast”. The state was
prior to the individual, in the sense that it provided opportunities for the achievement of full
humanity. Social affiliation gave to individuals their species identity:
All associations are in the nature of parts of the political association. Men journey
together with a view to some particular advantage, and by way of providing some
particular thing needed for the purposes of life; and similarly the political association
seems to have come together originally and to continue in existence, for the sake of the
general advantage which it brings.
The state was an instrument for an individual’s self-perfection. Far from being artificially or
contractually created, it evolved naturally. Aristotle contended that man by nature was a political
animal, making the state necessary and desirable. The significant point to note is that Aristotle’s
reference to nature confirmed the debate between nomos (convention) and phusis (nature) that
dominated Greek political theory in the fifth century BC. As advocates of the phusis argument,
both Plato and Aristotle asserted that the state and its laws were more than a product of convention.
It was a natural institution reflecting individuals’ needs and purposes, given human gregariousness
and sociability.
Like Plato, Aristotle asserted that education was an effective way to produce political unity,
though he criticized his mentor for not recognizing its economic significance. If the farmer and the
guardian were to receive the same education, then how could one expect them to perform different
functions? Conversely, if they did not receive similar education, then it would be a mistake to
assume that education could unify the city. For Aristotle, education was more than merely acquiring
skills and common beliefs, a point reitctated by Smith in his plea for the division of labour, and the
specialization of skills. Education, to Aristotle, symbolized a way of life, for individuals learned
largely by doing. Its goal was not unity, but to foster and protect a way of life that encouraged and
sustained diverse social and political activities.
Aristotle was convinced of the individual’s innate sociability and the natural desire to congregate
and remain in society, by virtue of the fact that a human being enjoyed a unique capacity for moral
choice and reasoned speech. Not only did reason distinguish humans from other social species,
but they alone had a perception of good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, implying that
these faculties could be developed only in company with others, and not in isolation. Not only
was social cooperation necessary, but also desirable.
For Aristotle, the good of a community was clearly the greater, the perfect thing to attain and
preserve, than the good of a single individual. This did not mean that an individual could be made
to sacrifice the private for the public. Rather, being poor judges of their own interests, individuals

34 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY