Page 56 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes polis. In fact, he pointed out that the polis by its diverse and plural nature differed from
the household. Unity was achieved when its differentiated parts worked in harmony
according to an overriding principle. However, the unity that Plato aspired for and
proposed by eliminating the private sphere would eventually, according to Aristotle,
only stifle the city and lead to its extinction.
But a state which becomes progressively more and more of a unity will cease to be a state at all.
Plurality of numbers is natural in a state; and the further it moves away from plurality towards
unity, the less a state it becomes and the more a household, and the household in turn an individual...
so, even if it were possible to make such a unification, it ought not to be done, it will destroy
the state.
From the point of view of feminists, both Plato and Aristotle raised a crucial issue. Was the family
an instrument or an obstacle to sexual equality? Could the family be the arena in which women
could attain freedom and fulfilment? Plato assumed that women could be free only if the institutions
of monogamous marriages and private families were abolished. Aristotle, on the contrary, defended
the private family vigorously, on the grounds that it made possible for the moral development and
the position of women within the household, for which they were best suited, and for the training
of children as future citizens. Both viewpoints had their strong adherents and antagonists in the
ensuing years, in fact centuries. Interestingly, Aristotle’s arguments with regard to the importance
of a private sphere and family have been reiterated by the liberals. The liberals, however, disagreed
with Aristotle on the position and status of women. Early liberals like Wollstonecraft and J.S. Mill
viewed women primarily as homemakers and wives, but argued for equal legal and civil rights
and demanded equal opportunities in education, employment and suffrage.
Property
Both Plato and Aristotle regarded economic activity as highly significant for the purpose of political
analysis. Economic activity had to be subordinated to political, since the former was concerned
with a single good, while political was concerned with good life as a whole in its multidimensional
sense. In discussing acquisition of wealth, Aristotle distinguished two modes: natural and unnatural.
The natural included hunting (brigandage, fishing, pursuit of birds and bees), grazing and
husbandry. It was natural, because nature not only gave them to all individuals for fulfilment of
their needs, but also fixed a limit on its consumption in accordance with subsistence.
The intermediate stage was barter, which was natural to the extent of allowing one to acquire
whatever was needed for the purposes of life. The use of money, however, led to other forms of
acquisition. Retail trade was one form with no limits on acquisition, and hence was an illiberal
occupation. Aristotle, following the Greek prejudice, rejected retail trade on moral grounds, for
the end of wealth, whether household income or that of a state, should be good life. He was critical
of small businessmen, shopkeepers and petty usurers, for they were corrupted by a desire for
financial gain. He preferred landed property to trade and commerce. The important thing was not
the greater or unlimited, but the right amount of wealth. Aristotle remained sufficiently ambiguous
about what could be regarded as the right amount of wealth. Good life was his main focus. He saw
an intimate link between the pursuit of bodily pleasures and a man’s ethical character. He stressed
that material goods were necessary for leading a good and happy life, though they were not an
end in themselves. In his scale of values, happiness of the soul was infinitely superior and higher
than any other pleasure in the world.
The most basic form of good economic activity was directed towards the use of the product. In this
context, Aristotle cited activities like fishing, shoemaking and farming. In activities where the
producer and his family directly benefit, in the sense that their needs are fulfilled, it would have
use-value. However, as society became more complex, trade increased and specialization of labour
became the organizing principle, products were made for purpose of exchange. Thus, products
assumed an exchange value in addition to a use-value.

50 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY