Critically Analyse the Claim that Humans Are Political Animals - Essay Example

Critically analyse the claim that humans are political animals Claiming that humans are political animals is true given the process through which human beings interact and coexist in their entire period of life while participating in various leaderships and rules (Zumbrunnen, 2002). Human beings also have the ability to create and develop communities which are very complex and larger than just simple families. The essay will therefore gives an analysis on the claim that human beings are animals in nature. The nature of a human being has since then become the original point of both political and intellectual developments. Modernists believe that all these were driven by the natural passions which were animal-like leading to development of a human language and reasoning. According to Aristotle though, the idea or claim that human beings are political by nature was coined from the argument that political rule and the state of the city is natural. This explains that city-state developed from small communities as human beings united in pairs and at end of it all the household arose due to the urge to serve their day-to-day needs (Carole 1970). Man can only exist in partnership so as to be supplemented with ideas and thoughts from other people and be complete in life just as any other animal does. This then is furthered by the statement that man in its nature is an animal which is conjugal and thus is meant to make a couple when it is an adult and establish more households. Dealing with fellow men and interacting with each other increases the wholeness of individuals and makes them active in the city. As Christiano (2008) suggests, the basis of this argument or theory on the political naturalism of humans has its solid foundations that the city-state and political rule are “natural.” All of these started with the outline of city-state development which is quasi-historical and well schemed as it all developed from communities which are simple. First, each and every individual human living in the simple communities, combined and formed partnerships to coexist together in pairs because they could not live separated and apart from each other. Human beings stayed in pairs of male and female with the intention to reproduce according to their nature of being conjugal animals, while on other hand the master and came in agreement with the slave together for their individual self-protection. In this case then the natural master automatically had to utilise the natural intellect he had in order to be able to rule and the slave naturally had to employ himself to work for the master. This makes it easy for rules and regulations to be adhered for hence making humans; who would otherwise behave like animals, live with some order and thus are political. Second, the household came up from the simple and primitive communities with the purpose and intention to naturally serve and fulfil the day-to-day needs of individuals (Nnoli 2003). Third, during the combination of a number of several households to meet other needs of the community as a whole, there came up a village naturally (Nnoli 2003). Finally, the so called complete community that emerged from number of several villages became a city-state which immediately was able to meet and sustain the boundary of its own self-reliance all for the purpose of good life for the human beings. This process then transformed humans who are animal in nature to interact and involve themselves with others and become political animals. Concerning the mention of nature and city-state, Aristotle justifies the claim that the city-state are there naturally because it all emerged to be different from the initial natural associations which are primitive and thus serves as the ultimatum of these associations (David and Kelly 2003). He then goes on to argue that the human beings are naturally political animals because they are naturally equipped with the ability to speak and communicate among them. This then means that human beings are able to interact and communicate concepts of morality and leadership in the city-state (Zumbrunnen, 2002). With the master then ruling the others as slaves, communication is efficient as both parties can understand each other and this makes it easy to give and take instruction. However, if there was no any communication between individuals, the city-state will only be in chaos and would not function well. Given the fact that individual human beings are not in any position to carry out their naturally defined functions without the city-state, the so given state is therefore naturally precedes the individuals in every aspect. In regards to the above mentioned arguments then, it is clear that every human being or individual has the natural impulse for a community which is political especially with the consideration that the city-state was created out of the intelligence of human beings. They then end up living a political life while in nature they are animals. Man is known to have an innate proclivity to always participate in several public activities and deal with others in the city. Associations and other bonds are then created as men live together in partnership due to the natural tendency to interact and socialize with other men. This then brings in the concept of them being political and thus differentiating humans and animals. Animals lack the ability to interact and share ideas with others but have the nature to coexist and reproduce just like human beings while living in partnerships. This means that humans are animals with the nature to interact and socialize and are capable of making decisions which are wise; that is the nature to be political. The existence of legal system in the city-state then serves as a factor to make human beings uphold virtues and be just to others as they coexist. This then ensures that humans stay away from behaviours of bestiality and savagery that could be part of their lives if there were no any legal regulations in the city-state ((Drucker 1993). On the contrary, if human beings were given the chance to live and exist without any legal restrictions or regulations of law, they would be perfect and best animals. It is only the legal adjudication in human life outlining legal regulations that maintains order and morality in human life. Living in a state city then, the innate nature of dependence and coexistence of human beings completely abolishes the conceptual idea of private persona. Individual’s private life is not common under any circumstance because every activity in the city-state is carried out in public (Bauer and Taylor 2005). All debates which are political and other public exercises and activities will involve other people in the city-state. In this view then Aristotle purports that the public interests of the whole city-state are not any different from that of an individual and so the community as all comes prior to that of an individual person. Human beings with the nature of animals will have no choice but to engage in public activities and become political. However, the interests of the whole community will always be subject to several aspects of life in that community. The needs of the people and the whole city state will be dictated by the entire population of the city state, the wealth and distribution of several classes making the city-state among other aspects (Ron 2009). There was a struggle between the classes in the city state especially between the poor and the rich. This then brings about the unjust distribution of resources and misrepresentations of interests because of the different classes of people in the community (Kindervater 2010). Inclusiveness in decision making, education and moderation in the general city-state will then be necessary to cut down the unfair distribution of political power and misrepresentations of interests. For Sigmund Freud, the struggle that existed between the city-state or community classes went beyond the just broadly defined classes but instead, it includes the struggles in a family; father and son and also leaders of clans which are established and other challengers which are very rebellious (Thomas 2008). The intellectual attitudes and artistic attitudes of human beings are then greatly influenced by economic circumstances in the community of city-state. All the economic activities and other political actions in a city-state will be dictated by the conditions and general prevailing of the economy of the community or city state. All this makes human beings political despite the nature of being animal-like. Another scientific argument defines the nature of human beings to be a collection of mental developments of people which occur in some patterns which are genetic. These developments then explain the various rituals and other cultural aspects of human life. The phenomena of culture of human beings are products of those mental developments of individuals and not part of their human nature (Carole Pateman, 1970). This means that the genetic patterns of these developments result in some reactions like fear not because fear is art of human nature but because the inherited some instincts of fear. Further explanation says that these instincts may even result in nightmares or fantasies about certain animals. As much as the several theorists try to explain the political naturalism in human beings, there is no concern or any consideration expressed on the part of the city-state’s modern liberalism. There is no explanation given on the freedom of individuals who participate in the city-state and protective provisions for their own private life from the exposition of the entire public. Aristotle’s arguments and justification on communitarian politics gives priority to the well-being of a community. Other modernists also argue on the basis of humans being conjugal and dependent on each other and thus conclude that establishing households, interacting and socializing among individuals makes one a complete human being. In that case, individual liberty does not win in context of any city-state just as freedom and private ownership does not exist for animals. References Bauer, Gretchen, and Scott D. Taylor. 2005. Politics in southern Africa: state and society in transition. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Carole, Pateman. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David, Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds). 2003. Political Thinkers, From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drucker, Peter F. 1993. Post-capitalist society. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. Kindervater, Garnet. 2010. "Interference: between political science and political philosophy". Journal of International Relations and Development. 13 (4): 452-472. Nnoli, Okwudiba. 2003. “Globalization and African political science”. African Journal of Political Science. 8 (2): 11-32. Ron Kroeker. 2009. “Xenophon as a Critic of the Athenian Democracy.” History of Political Thought. 30 (2):197-228. Thomas, Christiano. 2008. Issues in Political Theory, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zumbrunnen, J. 2002. “Democratic politics and the character of the city in Thucydides.” History of Political Thought, 23 (4): 565-589. Zumbrunnen, J. 2002. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Read More