Aristotle and Citizenship - Coursework Example

ARISTOTLE AND CITIZENSHIP I. INTRODUCTION Aristotle claims that “man is a creature by nature adapted for life in the polis or the (Bambrough,2003:425). In other words, man is a political animal. But what does this mean? Perhaps during Aristotle’s time this is easily comprehended as there is a clear delineation between the private sphere which is basically the personal life, the family and the public sphere which is the life with equals and friends in the polis (Arendt, 1958). This clear cut distinction between the private sphere and the public sphere in human life together with the strong belief among the ancient Greeks that the good life can only be pursued and attained within the polis or the city-state (Arendt, 1958; MacIntyre, 1981) provide the primordial reasons why the concept of citizenship has been discussed and elucidated extensively by the ancient philosophers specially Plato and Aristotle. As such it is understandable that in the contemporary period, though the reasons may have changed and the distinction between the private sphere and the public sphere has been lost (Arendt, 1958), scholars still go back to the works of Plato and Aristotle in the clarification and analysis of the concept of citizenship (eg. Arendt, 1958; MacIntyre, 1981; Nussbaum, 1990). In fact, this becomes more urgent as the contemporary world faces the phenomenon of global citizenship brought about by globalization (Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard, 2004). In lieu with this, the paper will be affirming the validity of the claim that “Aristotle should be required in public school as requisite for citizenship”. Arguments supporting the claim will be presented. However, it should be noted that the concept of citizenship which will be used in this paper is the idea that the “defining mark of a citizen is whether a man has a share in the administration of justice and in holding political office” (Aristotle’s Politics in Bambrough, 2003: 454). From this definition it can be impugned that as the individual person receives certain entitlement as a result of the person being a citizen of particular state, it also attests to the duties and obligations that a citizen has in relation with the State (Kalu, 2003). The choice of definition of citizenship poses as the limitation of the paper. Being such, the paper will be divided into three parts. The first part is the introduction where the thesis statement of the paper is presented. The second part contains the arguments for the claim and the third part is the conclusion. And hopefully in the end, convince the reader that Aristotle should be required in public school as requisite for citizenship. II. ARISTOTLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: FOR CITIZENSHIP As stated earlier, globalization (aside from creating a borderless and boundaryless market) has created the idea of a global citizen (Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard, 2004). In the face of this contemporary development, the need for a better understanding of what entails in becoming a citizen happens to be more necessary if people are to comprehend their roles, duties and status as a citizen of their own country and as a citizen of the world as well. In this context, in order to provide an enhance understanding of citizenship; Aristotle should be required in public schools as requisite for citizenship. This proposition is supported on the following grounds: First, Aristotle’s concept of citizenship highlights the interconnectedness of the questions “what am I? and what I can do for the State?” (O’Neill, 2006). In Aristotle’s Politics, he has shown that the creation of the city state is necessary as human persons by themselves are not self-sufficient. And thus by themselves are too weak to satisfy all their needs (Aristotle’s Politics in Bambrough, 2003: 432). Thus, the primary reason for human persons to come together and form a State is to survive life and transcend the limitation of self-insufficiency. This provides the reason for the origin of the State. However, when it comes to the preservation and perpetuation of the state, the primordial reason is no longer survival but the achievement of the good life (Bambrough, 2003). In this condition, the city-state becomes the arena where human persons can fulfill their purpose in life – enjoyment or happiness in the exercise of their intellectual and moral virtues with friends and equals(Nichomechean Ethics,1925; MacIntyre, 1981: Arendt, 1958). Thus, it can be claimed that Aristotle provide a good framework with which one can address the question what am I? And at the same time, understand why a person has to ask and act on the question what I can do for the state. Addressing these two questions is significant when it becomes necessary to explain to the children why they have to move beyond individual pursuit of interest towards communal achievement of the good. Second, Aristotle’s definition of citizenship which is a “man [who] has a share in the administration of justice and in holding political office” (Aristotle’s Politics in Bambrough, 2003: 454) is directly link to active, participatory citizenship. In the contemporary scenario, this means that citizens play a substantive role in the decision making regarding public policy (Kreibig, 2000). Though active citizenship has its own draw backs like it is time consuming and it is open to the danger of rule of the mob (Kreibig, 2000), nevertheless, it is only in active citizenship that shared decision –making in the public arena is attained. The recognition of the voice of the individual as integral in public policy is actualized (Kreibig, 2000). And as such, citizenship becomes an authentic mark of human development as it creates the necessary condition for human flourishing (Hindess, 2006). And for children to learn about this at an early age will surely provide a good grounding for the conceptual appreciation for active citizenship. Thus, the seed for the active involvement in the pursuit of the good life in the polis is already planted. Third, Aristotle’s philosophy is anchored on the principle of telos or purpose (Bambrough, 2003; MacIntyre, 1981). In the midst of contemporary angst regarding the lack of purpose of life, Aristotle’s view of man and man’s involvement in the polis creates an alternative with which a person may view life – the deep interrelation of individual life with the life of the polis may become the foundation with which a person may establish life’s purpose and meaning. Students learning this ideal at an early age will provide an impetus, even an ethos, to actively seek participation and commitment in the public life. Fourth, Aristotle’s ideal regarding liberal education as the means with which persons will be able to develop noble virtuous is pivotal in children’s education. This positive attitude is critical in the development and harnessing of the ‘noble virtues’ (intellectual and moral virtues) that is deemed necessary in preparing students for their active participation in the public life. Finn and Ravitch (2007) in their article claims that participation in the public life should move beyond the casting of votes during election. They have also maintained that the concept of public life is not just limited to political life or to actual service in the public sector. Finn and Ravitch (2007) have raised the idea that more than the clear cut political activities that most are familiar with, the non-governmental sector which is the civil society is very much alive and at play in American society. Being such, they support the idea that intellectual and moral virtues as espoused in liberal education should be taught and integrated in the public school as it develops critical thinking, tolerance and patience in midst of differences, ability to decide for one’s self, capacity to create and articulate arguments for one’s position or set of beliefs and it enhances respect (Finn & Ravitch, 2007). And as such, it is one the best tools that maybe used in support for freedom and democracy. For liberal education, “should liberate; it should cultivate the genuinely free man, the man of moral judgment, of intellectual integrity; it should give us the power to see the other side; it should impart nobility of purpose and kindliness of spirit” (Kandel as cited in Finn & Ravitch, 2007: 4). Being such, teaching Aristotle can fortify the values, intellectual and moral virtues of liberal education as Aristotle’s works can act as a guide in the understanding and implementation of the ideals of liberal education. Fifth, at the center of Aristotle’s Politics is the individual person experiencing the fullness of life - the happiness of living an intellectually and morally virtuous life geared towards the achievement of the good life in the polis with his friends and equals (MacIntyre, 1981; Nussbaum, 1990). This particular idea deconstructs individualism which marks the ideology of liberalism. Aristotle presents the idea that there is no dichotomy between the individual and the community. But that in the realization of the fullness of the human life, the interconnection between the individual and the community is momentous. Thus, making Aristotle a requirement in public schools will introduce children to the viability of reciprocal and integral relation of the individual and the community. Finally, the narrative of the human life is made more valuable not only because of the valuation that persons give on isolated or particular events in their lives. But that the stories become more meaningful the moment the personal life is integrated and seen as connected in the bigger and larger picture of the community where it finds itself living, thriving, and flourishing (Kalu, 2003). III. CONCLUSION Aristotle should be required in public schools as a requisite for citizenship because: 1. It connects the questions what am I? and what can I do for the state? 2. It provides the framework for active citizenship. 3. It provides purpose and meaning for life in the midst of contemporary angst. 4. It supports liberal education which is necessary for freedom and democracy to thrive. 5. It deconstructs individualism. Aristotle’s philosophy is not without flaws. But then, he does not claim panacea for all the ills of humanity. Instead, Aristotle affords a vision where the isolated, individual person finds meaning and purpose in the lived life of a citizen. REFERENCES: Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Aristotle. (1925). The Nichomachean Ethics. Trans with an Intro by David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bambrough, B. (2003). The Philosophy of Aristotle. New York: Signet Classic. Finn, C. E., & Ravitch, D. (2007). Why liberal education? Beyond the Basics: Achieving a Liberal Education for All Education. Eds by C.E. Finn & D. Ravitch. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Hindess, B. (2004). Citizenship for all, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 8, No 3, pp 305 – 315. Kalu, K.N. (2003). Of citizenship, virtue, and the administrative imperative: Deconstructing Aristotelian civic republicanism, Public Administration Review, Vol. 63, No 4, pp 418 – 427. Kreibig, D.J. (2000).Educating for active citizenship, Change: Transformations in Education, Vol. 3.1,pp 91 – 101. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Nussbaum, M. (1990). Aristotelian social democracy. In Liberalism and the Good, eds by Bruce R. Douglass, Gerald M. Mara & Henry N. Richardson, New York: Routledge. O’Neill, J. (2006). Citizenship, well-being and sustainability: Epicurus or Aristotle?, Analyse & Kritik, 28, pp 158 -172. Read More