The Conception of the Citizen in Book three of Politics - Essay Example

Conception of the Citizen in Book three of Politics Number Number Teacher’s Due Conception of the Citizen in Book three of Politics In many ways, the foundations of many of the disciplines that are seen in today’s world are those that were laid by the studies conducted by Aristotle. Politics is one such area that benefited greatly from the contributions that were made by Aristotle. In his great book, Politics, he talks about various forms of government and their relative merits and demerits. He talks at length about the roles of the different players who are a part of these political structures and provides examples for them from the ancient world. His area of study remains mostly the Greek states but he also includes as a part of his study the states that were in contact with Greece at that point of time. Aristotle was a part of ancient Greece and many of his worldviews may appear to be outdated and outmoded to any contemporary observer. However, the value of his contributions lies in the fact that they enabled a discussion of the relative worth of different modes of government. This played a great role in shaping future conceptions of governments and the state. The role of the citizen within such structures is also something that Aristotle discussed at length in his book. The importance of such discussions in the contemporary world lies in the fact that they enable the modern political commentator to be aware of the origins of democracy, which is the most favored form of government in today’s world. A deep understanding of the origins of this form of government and the earliest objections to it and the earliest appreciations of it is necessary for the smooth working of democracies in today’s world. Aristotle’s understanding of these political structures and his meticulous research into the roots of the problems that he discusses reveals an urge to understand the problems of the Greek states and press for a solution. This displays an objective and non-mercenary approach to the problem of politics, something which may again serve as a model for present-day commentators. The concept of the role of the citizen in a state is what is discussed at length in Book three of Aristotle’s work, Politics. This paper shall seek to analyze the concept as it is put forward by Aristotle. The analysis in this paper shall also seek to understand the reasons that Aristotle may have in conceptualizing the citizen in the way that he does. The class leanings and the misogyny in the conceptions of the citizen that Aristotle holds shall be made clear in this paper. An attempt shall be made to look at the conditions in ancient Greece that made it necessary and in a certain sense, inevitable for Aristotle to hold the views that he does in Book three of Politics. The arguments that shall be used in this paper shall employ modern theoretical frameworks such as feminism and Marxism as well, for the analysis of Aristotle. Aristotle’s conception of the citizen depends greatly upon the kind of state that a person lived in. in certain cases, he argues that the very question of a person’s citizenship had to be questioned for it to be determined eventually whether he or she was a citizen or not. He details the characteristic of a democracy, an oligarchy and a monarchy and the merits and demerits of each, according to the role that the citizen was expected to play in each of these forms of government. Who would be considered to be a citizen and who would not, would also depend heavily upon the character of the government, according to Aristotle. Aristotle thus, destabilized the notion of geographical citizenship. According to this notion, a person would be considered to be a citizen of a particular place as long as that person would be present within the geographical boundaries of that state. By doing so, Aristotle makes the status of citizenship extremely contingent upon the needs of the state and also upon the responsibilities and duties of the citizen towards the state. In this analysis of his, Aristotle also does not forget the responsibilities and the duties that the state s supposed to perform for the welfare of the citizen. The views that Aristotle holds regarding the status of a person’s citizenship, as a result often end up becoming extremely utilitarian and based solely on the benefits that the state may reap from a particular individual who may then be conferred the title of a citizen based on the presence or absence of utility as is decided by the government of a state. This can be seen in the way in which he repeatedly points to old men and young children as lesser citizens owing to the fact that they were not of much use to the state. Whenever there is any mention of citizens who are not of much use to the state, Aristotle quickly uses the analogy of old men and young children to prove how they were less of citizens or even not citizens owing to their uselessness from the point of view of the state. Aristotle’s conception of the citizen as a person who holds an office in the government is also something that is very class-oriented as in most states of Greece at that point of time, people were not allowed to hold public offices. By people, here, the common masses who had to work to earn their living are meant. Such people would not have had the opportunity to hold public office. Aristotle then gives his definition of the state and the citizen based on this idea of his- He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life (Aristotle, 53). However, this concept of the citizen is rendered problematic by this aspect of it as this would mean that in an assessment of the state, the interests of the lower classes would be considered less or worse, it would be completely ignored. As said earlier, a modern observer is likely to feel that what Aristotle says in the lines that have been quoted above and the passages that precede it are unacceptable, but what impels Aristotle to do so are the examples that he has from the countries and states that were a part of the ancient world. In forming the definition of the citizen in the above manner, he uses examples from the states of Lacedaemon and Carthage. Both these states were important centers of power in the ancient world. Aristotle then goes on to talk of the way in which citizens are determined, in practice. He says that people whose parents were citizens are often thought of to be citizens as well. This then, would mean that only the people who are descendants of the founders of the state would be able to call themselves as citizens of that state. This idea is exclusionary and it would be impossible for the people of the lower classes of that state or women who come from other states to hold the office of citizens. This exclusionary model of the state was what was followed in most ancient Greek states that placed a lot of value upon the importance of bloodlines. This can be seen in the dismissive manner in which Aristotle talks of the people of the lower classes in a later passage. The slaves were considered to be people with absolutely no rights and the models of citizenship that Aristotle talks of in his work are particularly cruel to the slaves. The importance that is given to bloodlines also means that the patriarchal authority of the male citizens would be given priority as opposed to the matriarchal one. A feminist argument against such models of citizenship can be made. The argument, however, needs to be directed against the male chauvinist Greek society of ancient times rather than solely at the arguments that are made by Aristotle. Even though Aristotle discusses the nature of the citizen at length in his book, he places greater emphasis upon the nature of the state. He says that as long as the nature of the state remained the same, the composition of the state in terms of its citizens did not matter too much. This can be seen from the analogy that he uses to describe the state. He uses the analogy of the river where he argues that a river would be considered to be the same over the years despite the water having changed. Unless the essential nature of the river would change, the river would still be considered to be the same. In a similar manner, over generations, even if the citizens of the state would change, the state would remain the same as long as it’s essential nature was to remain the same. The nature of the citizen as compared to his other nature- that of a human being is also analyzed by Aristotle. He talks of how the virtue of a good man would differ from that of a good citizen. A good person would not necessarily be a good citizen and vice-versa, according to Aristotle. This, he says, is because the duties that a citizen would be expected to perform would sometimes clash with a person’s duties as a good citizen. Aristotle looks upon the state as an organism, something that would remind a modern commentator of how ancient civilizations had societies that were organic. This organicity is maintained with much pain to people who were marginalized in those times, such as the people on whom Aristotle prefers not to confer citizenship. Aristotle criticizes extreme forms of democracy where there would be no differences between the ruled and the ruler. He also feels that the citizen would not be in a good position if his education makes him fit to rule and not to be ruled as these functions are supposed to co-exist in the citizen and not be separate elements in him. While explaining this point, Aristotle talks of how a male citizen would be less of a citizen if he had but the courage of a courageous woman. By making such references, the misogyny that was a part of ancient civilizations is made amply clear to us and the rest of the conceptions of the citizen that Aristotle puts forward too must be viewed in this light. Works Cited Aristotle. Politics. Tr. Benjamin Jowett. Kitchener: Batoche, 1999. Read More