Aristotles Political Virtue and Modern Conceptions of Citizenship - Essay Example

Aristotle's Political Virtue and Modern Conceptions of Citizenship number] 4 January 2006 Aristotle's Political Virtue and Modern Conceptions of Citizenship Several key moments in history helped to develop the definition and importance of citizens in society: Aristotle's Politics, the constitution of Athens, Roman republics, city-states of 13th century Italy, Geneva, the English Civil War and its commonwealth ideology, republicanism of the Enlightenment, the American Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and republican despotism of the French Revolution's Committee of Public Safety. With each event, the role of a citizen was became more clearly defined and thoughts on what a citizen should be remained the focal point of political discussion (Ignatieff, 1987). Leading the way with these incremental beliefs is Aristotle's Politics, in which the ideal of citizenship was first expressed; specifically, this ideal entail that through participation, a citizen could transcend his or her limits of private interest and become what Aristotle defined as man's true identity--a political animal (Ignatieff, 1987). Aristotle's beliefs still hold relevance in today's conceptions of citizenship. Aristotle writes that prior to inquiring about the attributes and essences of government a person must find an answer to the question "What is a state" (Book 3, chapter 1, 1275a). In Politics (1252-3), Aristotle states his belief that humans came together out of a common need, thus the formation of cities and city-states. Cities served as a means to better control the residents within a given country or empire; the city still served as the most effective point of contact between the people who ruled and those they ruled over (Freeman, 1999). With this thought in mind, a city would seem to run much more effectively while under the administration of one leader--so perhaps a civilisation could too. According to Aristotle's Politics, a state is composed of several components much like any other whole made up of parts; these components include the citizens. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term For here again there may be a difference of opinion. He who is a citizen in a democracy will often not be a citizen in an oligarchy (Book 3, chapter 1, 1275a). Aristotle also commented that besides the citizens, states are comprised of other elements, such as a working class, a rich class, and a poor class (Politics, Book 4, chapter 4). The working class, which was in the middle of the two extremes, Aristotle believed to be the most capable of following rational principles. His logic was simple: those people who appeared to have to much in the way of luxuries would not be likely to submit to other citizens' authority, while those who were extremely lacking in even the basic necessities of life would likely feel too degraded to obey another's rule. Therefore, a working class would help to balance the few, wealthy elite with the many, antagonistic poor (Politics, Book 4, chapter 4). Aristotle had gone on to specify the many different groups within these three basic types, to include: military, husbandry, traders, artisans, magistrates, serfs and labourers. As has happened several times throughout history, the existence of inequality between rich and poor sparked tensions between these social classes. Contrary to previous tribal or contemporary feudal societies, Athens at this point in time did not boast any priestly class. For as culturally diverse as the world is becoming, a political community can only flourish is there is at least an agreement on the rules (Financial Times, 2005); this notion of politics is very broad. Included with this idea of politics are methods for choosing who will hold executive, judicial, and legislative powers and what the holders of these powers are entitled to do (Financial Times, 2005). Politics concerns the rights of individual citizens against the state and other citizens; simply put, politics is centred on the legitimacy and limits of power (Financial Times, 2005). As with many of his other texts, Aristotle has raised many questions in Politics that many are still clamouring to find definitive answers to (Armogathe, 2005). Rarely has there been a convergence between the identities of those people over whom power is asserted, who prior to globalisation had simply been residents of a territory with boundaries, and the identities of those people, the sovereigns, who exercised their powers (Benhabib, 1999). Citizenship has been, since its inception, an exclusionary ideal. Aristotle defined a citizen as a person who was fit to both obey and rule: this implies that a true citizen would be both active and passive--participating in governance by holding offices adhering to the laws set by fellow citizens (Ignatieff, 1987). Therefore, civic virtue is two-fold: a citizen will be willing to take on the burden of public office while also remain willing to subdue his private interests for the sake of public obedience. "What Aristotle called the 'right temper' of a citizen is thus a disposition to put public good ahead of private interest" (Ignatieff, 1987, 12). In Aristotle's Niromachean Ethics, "the good is not some common element answering to one idea" (cited in Starobin, 2005); this seeming vague definition of what "the good" is can and has been interpreted as a non-specific universal good. The question still remains however, who is fit to be a citizen Aristotle assumed political discussions required a rational choice for the good of the overall public (Ignatieff, 1987); this would also imply that the people participating in these discussions would have to be those who were capable of making rational choices. At that time, with slavery abundant, the only people viewed as capable of making these choices were free men. Other people, such as slaves, women, children, and even paid workers were considered "dependant" and therefore could not become citizens (Ignatieff, 1987). This form of the included ruling over the excluded is probably the most commonplace for of tyranny in human history. For a resident within a city or state to realise a role in politics, he had to be a free property owner and had to undertake an active role within the community. Humankind's awareness of existence is shaped and developed directly through its interaction with the world around him. Membership within a political community opened doors to new alternatives for a wide range of ends now possible to pursue. Within a self-governing community, men were able to pursue and actively participate in achieving the individual ends desired while simultaneously helping to preserve the community's overall state of well being and liberty. Democratic and oligarchic factions fought bitter battles within cities. Farmers lived on the edge of destitution, and bad harvests might impel them towards debt slavery. Equality within cities was not matched by equal relations between cities, and war was endemic. The Greeks were a talkative, passionate people, and their politics was often violent and sometimes corrupt" (Minogue, 1995, p.11). While much was still to be determined about the equalities that citizens would share, the social and political interaction trait of a self-governing city or state helped to foster the essential ideals needed for the preservation of liberty and autonomy for all residents. With the advent of universal suffrage, women's rights to vote and empowerment to hold official positions, and the emancipation of slaves worldwide, a new definition of citizenship was necessary. Further development of this definition will now need to include "aliens" and immigrants travelling over political boundaries (Benhabib, 1999). The growing globalisation is producing conflicts between human rights and sovereignty claims (Benhabib, 1999): On the one hand, a world-wide consciousness about universal principles of human rights is growing; on the other, particularistic identities of nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, and language (by which one is said to belong to a sovereign people) are asserted with increasing ferocity (Benhabib, 1999, p.1). Sovereignty by definition is the right to collectively define itself over a particular, bounded territory; declaring sovereignty often creates a distinction between "them" and "us" (Benhabib, 1999). As those boundaries are torn down, the citizenship claims of foreigners and denizens must be recognised. If universal human rights are to transcend the rights of citizens, the statements regarding citizenship, immigration, and naturalisation must be addressed to extend those rights to all persons considered to be moral beings. Sociologically, the institution and practise of "citizenship" can be divided into three major points: collective identity, privileges of political membership, and claims to social rights (Benhabib, 1999). Aristotle also pointed out that several types of citizens existed; more specifically "the citizen is a member of a community....One citizen differs from another, but the salvation of the community is the common business of them all" (The Politics, Book 3, chapter 4, 1276b). he also made clear that citizenship was not a role for women to play, as in the Nichomachean Ethics "man is born for citizenship" (Book 1, chapter 7, 1097b); though this philosophy is flawed, there is still room to employ this thought and adopt it for modern use (Pettus, 1997). The ideology that "man rules over his wife" has dominated Western socio-political for over two thousand years, but that is not the only struggle challenging the definition or conceptions of modern-day citizenship (Minogue, 1994). Debates over whether or not non-White or colonial peoples are capable of self-rule, whether women should have a right to vote, or whether a gay person could hold a public office are all examples of challenges forming tensions between the naturalistic and the social dimensions of citizenship (Benhabib, 1999). The Greek polis allowed the people to express them selves both individually and as one voice. This polity proved to be both ideological and reflective as it allowed a person to participate in political society while also protecting his private life; unfortunately, many people lived in constant oscillation as they tried to find a balance between the two (Barker, 1960). Free males that made up the body of citizens in the political arena directly participated in democratic politics: this was not done simply by placing a vote, but this was done also by speaking in assembly and serving them selves and the public good through active interaction with other citizens (Barker, 1960). Being a member of a self-governing body of citizens required that men use a process of individuation while reflecting on any existing connection between social order and the social demands as well as maintaining focus on the individual aims of each citizen (Freeman, 1999). These requirements prompted a need to resolve arising conflicts between public and private avenues. The Greek polis not only expressed the material and political interests of those people who ruled or were ruled over, but the polis also expressed their intangible needs such as nobility and freedom (Freeman, 1999); thus making the participation in politics an extenuation of the seemingly menial status of the people. To truly study and understand the development of Greek government and its influences on much of the modern world in relation to its citizens, a person must dedicate some time to looking into two legal codes that also held immense influence within the court systems of Athens: the Draconian and the Solonian Codes (Farrer, 1988). Theoretically, decisions that were handed down by the courts in Athens were based on one or both of these written laws. A lawgiver by the name of Dracon is given credit for the first written laws to appear in Greece around the year 621 BC (Farrer, 1988). Under the statutes provided by this law, all offences were punishable by death with no regard as to how many repeated times the offence had been committed or how severe the crime seemed to be. Despite the harshness of these laws, they contributed only slightly to the collapse of the pre-existing constitution in Athens. Once again, the tensions that arose between the rich and poor classes ultimately led to the reform. During this time, a man by the name of Solon was given the task of rewriting the constitution so as to end the quarrelling between the different classes of citizens (Farrer, 1988). The first step in rewriting this constitution was to abolish each of Dracon's laws except for those referencing homicide. Today, capital punishment, that in which death is the punishment for a crime, is still used for many cases around the world for homicide, and there are still areas that refer to harsh laws as "Draconian." The establishment of democracy towards the end of the 6th century was also associated with a more benevolent attitude about slavery and towards slaves (Dimitris, 1994). For example, Aristotle describes Athens "after the expulsion of tyrants, when Kleisthenes made many foreigners and slaves citizens by enrolling them in the tribes" (1275b). Of course, the idea behind this enrolment was derived from a need to strengthen the democratic side of the political arena against the aristocrats. Aristotle's immense influence does not end with the lines drawn between who could or could not be a citizen. His perceptions of rhetoric, of which there are three types, can still be seen in use today. Judicial rhetoric concerns itself with past events, as a jury would determine guilt or innocence. Deliberative rhetoric allows a speaker to either dissuade or exhort democratic assembly members to a proposed course of action, and demonstrative rhetoric is a form of oratory speech, such as the ones given at funerals, that offers praise, honour, or blame for an individual (Molina & Spicer, 2004).though today's terminology deems the users of rhetoric as people who try to make a weak argument seem compelling, to Aristotle, rhetoric ideally formed paradigms and enthymemes from ideas that seemed true to a "group of people when deliberating among them selves how best to order [and run] their society" (Molina & Spicer, 2004, p.3). Michael Oakeshott (1991) observed the following when referencing Aristotelian rhetoric: Its argument is concerned with contingencies, not necessities; with probabilities and expectations, not with demonstrable certainties; with conjectures not proofs; with surmises and guesses not with calculations. It is reasoning designed to persuade to decision and action where proof or disproof of the propositions contained in the proposal is impossible to provide (p. 80). Many historians believe Aristotle to have favoured deliberative rhetoric over both other forms he identified as he devoted the most time and attention to this rhetoric (Molina & Spicer, 2004). Deliberative rhetoric concerns itself with future events--specifically, what would need to be done to achieve a certain end to a means. In Aristotle's perspective, human action would be the means while happiness would serve as the end (Molina & Spicer, 2004), therefore, all human endeavours should have been directed towards promoting human happiness. Happiness, however, is never unitary; happiness is comprised of many parts of good: health, friendship, honour, reputation, and virtue (Molina & Spicer, 2004). Furthermore, though these many parts come together to form happiness, the overall package of goods will vary from person to person at any given time. Athenians were able to preserve many of their political beliefs and practises even through occupation during the reign of the Roman Empire. Kevin Minogue (1995), an author of several books regarding ancient political theory, illustrates the type of formal position Athenians had that left such a deep imprint with today's society: Among the Greeks we find most of the conditions of freedom: a life lived among equals, subject only to law, and ruling and being ruled in turn. The Greeks were the first historical people to create societies having this form; certainly they were the first to create a literature exploring it as an experience. Politics was the activity specific to this new thing called 'citizen'. It might take many forms, even the debased forms of tyranny and usurpation, but on one thing the later classical Greeks were adamant: oriental despotism was not politics (p.11). Unfortunately modern politics does not often afford rationality as paramount. For this reason, the public often sees politicians as self-serving and arrogant: believing solely in their own superiority and trying to amass power not for the general good, but with immense emotions clouding their rational. Education is another area over which Aristotle has a large influence. Aristotle believed that to be a citizen, a person must learn through education the values and concepts entailed within that citizenship. David Hargreaves, a Professor of Education at Cambridge, said this about implementing a statutory citizenship curriculum within the schools: Civic education is about the civic virtues and decent behaviour that adults wish to see in young people. But it is also more than this. Since Aristotle, it has been accepted as an inherently political concept that raises questions about the sort of society we live in, how it has come to take its present form, the strengths and weaknesses of current political structures, and how improvements might be made... Active citizens are as political as they are moral; moral sensibility derives in part from political understanding; political apathy spawns moral apathy (Cited in Crick, 2002, 7). In contrast to other democratic regimes, England has been slow with the implementation of a mandatory citizenship curriculum (Crick, 2002). While Aristotle clarified the need for education to properly prepare a person for citizenship, Sir Bernard Crick, a former citizenship advisor to the DfES and first President of the Association for Citizenship Teaching (ACT), maintains that failing to teach students democratic citizenship by providing a sense of possession over the schools is much the same as hurling the young into shark infested waters (2002). In 1950, T.H. Marshall wrote a book in which he defined citizenship as a process containing three elements: "the civil (liberty, freedom of speech), the political (participating in the exercise of power) and the social (economic welfare and security, sharing a heritage)" (Cited in Wragg, 2002, 4). Although these aspirations are noble, there can be no doubt that the best and most efficient way to fully reach them lies at the heart of the educational system. Specific aspects of teaching citizenship will be easier to implement than others. For example, the idea of an "active citizenship" can be very attractive to younger people; adolescents often hope to avoid some of the previous generation's largest mistakes (Wragg, 2002). Other aspects, however, might prove to be disastrous if taught poorly to young people; "Political Literacy," for example, will be extremely boring if this course were to involve long lectures about how a council works or the history of the Labour Party. Adolescents have an immense amount of energy to accompany a large capacity for learning-while they might be able to dance around for hours without stopping for breath, many are unwilling to even raise an eyebrow when in an academic environment (Wragg, 2002). To effectively teach citizenship to a group of students such as this, a curriculum must be found that can harness the large amounts of potential energy to a constructive, positive end. In Politics (Book 3, chapter 4) Aristotle implies that full time workers, though essential to the state, are not worthy of becoming citizens because they lack the necessary free time to devote to leisurely activities. With this implication, a person can reasonably presume that an educational curriculum for teaching the political, social, and civil aspects of citizenship must be accompanied with effective education centred on developing a use for leisurely time. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle foreshadows the prominence of distributive justice with the discussion of courage in Book V. the legislator discourages vices by encouraging virtue and distributing honours (Ward, 2001). The significance of these assigned honours (a key element in distributive justice) is clarified in the introduction to chapter 3 in the Nichomachean Ethics: both "those examining virtue" and "the legislator in assigning honours and punishments" will hold interest in the treatment of moral virtue (Nichomachean Ethics, 1109b35). The possibility exists, of course, that "the legislator" and "those examining virtue" may not be different types of people. Aristotle recognizes that many regimes have failed to provide a sound moral education to their citizens and offers a way to rectify the problem. Aristotle's treatise on moral virtue provides guidance for legislators who strive to encourage the practise of virtue among its citizens to develop a morally serious city; this can be done by more fully integrating the morally serious individuals into the political arena of actual regimes (Ward, 2001). Citizenship has by no means been easy to define over the ages, and the implied definitions appear to be ever changing rather than clarifying. From the times when Aristotle first tackled the task of defining what a citizen was and what role he would play in a state, several event have happened that have served only to change, add, or subtract several parts to his definition. The fight for women's rights brought about the need to include women as citizens, both capable of ruling and being ruled on equal terms; the abolishment of slavery served to rid the text of all meaning regarding "live property." Yet, despite these many changes, there has been one constant in the responsibilities of a citizen to his or her country or empire: to serve the greater good and protect that community (Prideaux, 2004). The idea that residents of a particular region should have some sort of duty to others for the sole reason that they live nearby is not an attractive notion to every one; perhaps the term "duty" appears to be too archaic (Prideaux, 2004). The softer side to a citizen's duty, being a member of civilised society, lacks the motivation of people to participate actively. There is a reciprocal relationship between friendship and citizenship when referencing Aristotle for political philosophies and theories: "Aristotle speaks of friendship in the Nichomachean Ethics as he speaks of citizenship in the Politics" (Westbrook, 1983, p.1). a person can see this relationship when studying the value Aristotle has placed on friendship in political life; Aristotle viewed friendship as a specific human need and desire required as part of a healthy political life (Westbrook, 1983). Though there have not been many studies closely examining this apparent relationship, further studies may be recommended to better define the role of friendship in citizenship and the importance of each to one another. While governments have established programmes requiring citizens to pay taxes and allowing citizens to vote, these are just the minimum requirements of modern-day citizenship (Prideaux, 2004). Unfortunately, nothing has been made clear as to what citizens should be attempting or doing beyond these points. Aristotle had to concede his definition of what being a citizen entailed in Book 3 of Politics because when all is said and done, in practise, a citizen is really those people whose parents were citizens (Prideaux, 2004). However, with globalisation and the growing trends for international student exchanges and immigration, even this requirement has now been bypassed. John Prideaux (2004) reported that Henley & Partners, a law firm specialising in relocating rich people, claimed residency in Britain could be bought for 1m ; and that buying this residency would almost certainly end in citizenship if the buyers so desired ( 10). The appearance of medieval philosophies and traditions is abundant throughout many aspects of the modern world: from politics to court systems, architecture, and even requirements for citizenship. But is this resurgence of medieval philosophies exaggerated Cary Nederman emphasises that medieval writers such as Aristotle employed their classical models in creative ways not completely suitable for use today (Cited in Canning, 1999). Nonetheless, the influence that Aristotle had on citizenship both in ancient times through the medieval era and even today remains large. In his review of Nederman's essay collections regarding medieval political influences, Canning writes: It is perfectly true that a structure was imposed by many modern historians of medieval political thought, a structure which suggested that the influence of Aristotelian political ideas, derived from the rediscovered Ethics and Politics, brought about an intellectual revolution ( 1) Exaggerated or not, the influence that Aristotle and other philosophers of his time had on modern-day politics and laws is undeniable, particularly when striving to define citizenship and its role in society. An ever changing world is forcing the public, once again, to re-establish and define the requirements of becoming a citizen. From Aristotle's the Politics, in which a citizen was a free man who was capable of ruling and being ruled, to modern-day taxes and representational governments in which the public votes in ideas without speaking individually to an assembly, the democratic regimes of yesterday are still very much alive in the political arenas today. However, even if people were to accept politics as characterised by Aristotle as an organised and required activity, the results may not necessarily be that the development of civic capacities will be organised or required for every person. References Ignatieff, M. (1987) The Myth of Citizenship. The Whig - Standard, Kingston, Ontario. 20 October 1987. p. 1. Retrieved 2 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Financial Times. (2005) When Multiculturalism is a nonsense. Financial Times, London (UK). 31 August 2005. p.15. Retrieved 2 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Armogathe, JR. (2005) The Impact of Aristotelianism on Modern Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy. April 2005. Vol.43, Iss. 2, pp. 209-210. Retrieved 3 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Benhabib, S. (1999) Citizens, residents, and aliens in a changing world: Political membership in the Global era. Social Research. Fall 1999. Vol.66, Iss. 3, pp. 709-114. Retrieved 2 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Lewis, V.B. (2000) What's wrong with democracy. The Review of Politics, Notre Dame. Spring 2000. Vol.62, Iss. 2, pp. 401-404. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Pettus, K. (1997) Ecofeminist citizenship. Hypatia Fall 1997. Vol.12, Iss. 4, pp. 132-155. Retrieved 3 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Starobin, P. (2005) Plato, anyone National Journal. 2 April 2005, Vol.37, Iss. 14, pp. 962-968. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Minogue, K. (1994) And does thinking make it so The Times, London (UK). 24 September 1994. p. NOPGCIT. Retrieved 2 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Molina, A.D. & Spicer, M.W. (2004) Aristotelian rhetoric, pluralism, and public administration. Administration and Society, Beverly Hills. July 2004. Vol.36, Iss. 3, pp. 282-305. Retrieved 3 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Oakeshott, M. (1991) Rationalism in politics and other essays. Indianapolis, IN. Liberty Publishers. Minogue, K. (1995) Politics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Freeman, C. (1999) The Greek Achievement: The Foundation of the Western World. New York, Viking Penguin. Barker, E. (1960) Greek Political Theory: Plato and his Predecessors. London. Methuen and Co. Ltd. Farrer, C. (1988) The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Crick, B. (2002) Citizenship: Citizenship must begin to replace ethos in the classroom. The Independent, London (UK) 27 September 2002. p. C 5. Retrieved 3 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Wragg, T. (2002) Education: Wise words: How will schools tackle the challenge of turning our students into citizens The Guardian, Manchester (UK). 6 August 2002. p. 5. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Aristotle. (1934). Nichomachean Ethics, trans. Harris H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library. Aristotle. (1984). Politics, trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ward, L. (2001) Nobility and Necessity; the problem of courage in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. The American Political Science Review, Menasha. March 2001. Vol.95, Iss. 1, pp. 71-83. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Prideaux, J. (2004) The new global elite. New Statesmen, London (UK). 25 April 2004. Vol.17, Iss. 801, pp. 22-23. Retrieved 2 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Dimitris, K. (1994) The Athenian democracy and its slaves. London (UK). February 1994. Vol.44, Iss. 2, pp. 43-48. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Sandel, M. & Pangle, T.L. (1997) TDemocracy's discontent; America in search of apublic philosophy. Books in Canada, Toronto. March 1997. Vol.26, Iss. 2, p. 27. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Westbrook, J.A. (1983) Friendship and Citizenship in Aristotle's 'Politics'. PhD Dissertation. Emory University. 1983. Retrieved 4 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Canning, J. (1999) Medieval Aristotelianism and its limits. The American Political Science Review, Menasha. September 1999. Vol.93, Iss. 3, pp. 705-706. Retrieved 1 January 2006 from ProQuest Database. Read More