ARISTOTLE AND CITIZENSHIP

Submitted By-

AYUSH GAUR

SM0117012

Faculty in Charge

Dr. MayengbamNandakishwor Singh

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

GUWAHATI

23 APRIL, 2018
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.Research Questions

1.2.Literature Review

1.3.Scope and Objective

1.4.Research Methodology

2. IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP

3. ARISTOTLE ON CITIZENSHIP AND SLAVERY

4. ARISTOTLE ON STATE AND CITIZENSHIP

5. RELEVANCE OF CITIZENSHIP ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

6. CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2
 CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

Aristotle was an ancient Greek political philosopher and scientist who was born in 384
BC in the city of Stagira, in the north of Classical Greece. He was better known as the teacher of
Alexander the Great. He was a student of Plato and is considered an important figure in Western
Philosophy. Along with Plato, Aristotle is considered the Father of Western Philosophy which
inherited almost its entire teaching that are influencing all forms of knowledge. His father
Nicomachus died when Aristotle was a child he was bought up by a guardian. At his early age
around seventeen or eighteen years of age he joined the Plato’s Academy in Athens and
remained there until the age of thirty seven. His writings cover many subjects including physics
biology zoology metaphysics logic ethics poetry, psychology, politics and government.

Aristotle’s views on citizenship are coloured by his conservative stance. He wanted to

rationalize the situation in Athens and was opposed to radical transformation. Citizens in the
“polis” were privileged class of people who enjoyed complete monopoly in political affairs.
Property was an important qualification for being a citizen. It was based on heredity. The bulk of
the population comprising the slaves, metrics (resident aliens) and women were debarred from
citizenship status. Aristotle developed the Idea of citizenship and restored the problem of
citizenship to the centre of political discussion. A citizenship has been a persistent social human
need. It is as old as settled human community. It defines those who are and who are not member
of a common society. The social and political ties, which hold an individual in community with
his fellows, is the essence of citizenship. It is a relationship between the individual and the state
by which the former owes allegiance and the later gives protection. The concept of citizenship
was invented by the Greeks and has been defined, redefined and reinvented during the last 2500
years by Romans and the modern nation-state.

3
1.1 Research Questions

 What is the general idea of citizenship?

 What was Aristotle’s view on citizenship and slavery?

 What was Aristotle’s theory of state?

 What is the significance of Aristotle’s theory of citizenship?

1.2 Literature Review

➢ Subrata Mukherjee; Great western political thinkers Vol. 2: Aristotle (384 BC-322
BC); Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi
This book helped in understanding the Aristotle’s views on citizenship, why he didn’t
considered women as citizen, what were his views on slavery and how some
individuals are superior to others and how men are superior to women.

➢ O. P. Gauba; Western Political Thought; Macmillan Publishers, Delhi

This book helped in understanding the Aristotle’s theory of state that how state should
be, what was the origin of the state, what is the nature of state and it also helps in
understanding the concept of Aristotle’s cycle of political change.

1.3 Scope and Objectives

The scope of this project is to know about Aristotle and his view on citizenship, slavery and
women and then to critically analyze his views on citizenship.

The objectives of this project are as follows:-

➢ To research about the Aristotle view on citizenship

4
 ➢ To know about the view of Aristotle on Citizenship
➢ To critically analyze the view Aristotle on citizenship
➢ To know the view of Aristotle on State
➢ To know the view of Aristotle on Slavery

1.4 Research Methodology

In this project, the researcher has adopted Doctrinal research. Doctrinal research is essentially
a library-based study, which means that the materials needed by a researcher may be available
in libraries, archives, and other data-bases. Various types of books were used to get the
adequate data essential for this project. The researcher also used computer laboratory to get
important data related to this topic. The researcher also found several good websites which
were very useful to better understand this topic.

5
 CHAPTER – 2
IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP

The idea of active citizenship can, on a theoretical level, be described as that which
defines and demarcates the affiliation of the individual and the group to a political community.
This affiliation has two different aspects. One of them concerns the relationship between citizens
and the rights and obligations assigned to them by political institutions, whereas the other
concerns public relationships in which citizens try to clarify and solve common affairs The idea
of an active citizenship dates back to ancient Greece and its philosopher. Aristotle, who was the
first to develop a theory on citizenship. Following Aristotle’s idea, Citizenship during the years
500 to 400 BC was practiced in the city government in Athens, then called Polis Greek
citizenship was primarily based on the fact that each citizen had an obligation towards the city
government. It was considered a moral duty to be an active citizen who took part in political life.
If one were to be respected as both a citizen and a human being, one would be morally obliged to
take an active part in general matters concerning Polis. The idea of citizenship was therefore
closely linked to the individual citizen and his rights and duties to take an active part in the
political community. The notion of citizenship was based more on obligations towards the city
government itself rather than on the rights of the individual citizen. A good citizen was a person
who served the city government through military commitments and an active participation in
political life. There was a redrafting of the idea of citizenship during the 19th century. The
beginning of the industrial revolution, together with the growth of market economy, caused
major social changes which, in turn, created a marked contrast between the absolute monarchy of
the time and the new progressive trend of citizenship. This eventually led, among other things; to
the French revolution in 1789 The French revolution meant that the king’s supremacy was
replaced by the supremacy of the people. The king was no longer God’s representative on earth
as he had been under absolute monarchy On the philosophical level, the period was marked by
the Enlightenment which contributed to the development of new values such as freedom,
tolerance, pluralism, individual rights, as well as promoting the idea of secularisation, in other
words the separation of religion and politics. In the modern world, citizenship is a legal status
that bestows uniform rights and duties upon all members of a state. Modern citizenship is

6
associated with equality before the law, freedom from arbitrary rule, and a basic sense of human
dignity bound up with the idea of human rights. It is a powerful term that evokes not only the
rights that citizens may claim, but also the duties to which they are called, including dying for
one's country. The idea of citizenship, that is, a body of free people bound by a common law,
was restricted to those who enjoyed full rights of membership in privileged towns, the bourgeois.

There was no concept of universal rights of citizens. Rights took the form of privileges
that were legitimated by tradition and distributed inequitably according to place, rank, and
membership in other corporate bodies—guilds, parliaments, universities, and the like. Now in the
modern time, the idea of citizenship is the status of a person recognized under
the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. A
person may have multiple citizenships and a person who does not have citizenship of any state is
said to be stateless.

7
 CHAPTER – 3
ARISTOTLE ON CITIZENSHIP AND SLAVERY

Aristotle strongly believed that the middle class have a powerful role to play in the
state. Aristotle was a conservative or a traditional philosopher, who never felt the need to change
the existing system. He, however, attempted to rationalize and channelize the existing conditions.
He believed in maintaining status quo. As regards the issue of citizenship, in ancient Greece,
especially in Athens, citizenship was given to only the privileged class or, in other words, it was
their monopoly of the upper class. This monopoly was hereditary in nature, and according to
Aristotle, the monopoly entitles a person to be a part of political, judicial and deliberative
matters.
In his book 1 of ‘Politics’ Aristotle defined state as an association of associations. But in
book 3 he described state is made of individuals. It is therefore necessary to examine the status of
different individuals in the state in order to explain who are citizens and who are not.1

According to Aristotle all resident of a state are not its citizens. In ancient Greek city –
states women, slaves and foreigners were not considered as citizens. He further opined that
nature did not favour them for enjoying the political wisdom of politics. Moreover, these classes
could not afford leisure and sufficient economic or mental development, which were considered
the prerequisites of citizenship. He argued that mere residence in a city or a state cannot be
treated as a qualification for becoming a citizen thereof. It will be better if citizenship is define
don the basis of one’s function or qualification. He believed that only those member of state can
be regarded its citizen who are entitled to take part in deliberative or judicial office. The
citizenship is not given on the basis of birth. Only those people were considered as citizens who
had the ability to take part in the administration of state or deliverance of justice. In short he
recognized citizenship as the privilege of ruling class.2

1
O. P. Gauba; Western Political Thought; Macmillan Publishers, Delhi
2
ibid

8
 To acquire citizenship, Aristotle prescribed certain qualities like residence, right of suing
and being sued and descent from a citizen. Apart from the above qualities, a person should be
competent enough to participate in judicial and deliberative functions and also the capacity to
rule and be ruled. One who lacked these qualities could not be a complete and good citizen.

According to Aristotle, a good citizen and a good man must work towards not only the
welfare of the state, but also perform various other duties. According to Jewett, a good citizen
may not be a good man; a good citizen is one who does good services to the state and this state
may be bad in principle. In a constitutional state, a good citizen should know how to rule as well
how to obey. The good man is one who is fit to rule. But the citizen in a constitutional state
learns to rule by obeying orders. Therefore, citizenship in such a state is a moral training.
Aristotle strongly believed that the middle class have a powerful role to play in the state.

The good man and the good citizen are not one and the same. What can be said about one
cannot be necessarily said about the other. It is essential for the good man to be a good citizen. It
is not, though, vital for the good citizen to be a good man. This distinction is important to make,
because it helps one understand that the qualities a good man possesses far supersede those of a
good citizen.3
A good citizen does what is best for the community, his city. As long as he is no harm to
his surroundings, and cares for the improvement and betterment of his city, he is a good citizen.
Who a person is doesn't greatly affect what kind of citizen he will be. What if a man is a secret
murderer? If we were to say that he only kills people outside of his city, would he be affecting
the city in any way? If he was a great politician and lived this secret life as well would he still be
a great citizen? The answer is yes. This is because the good citizen doesn't have to care about
others. He can allow his desires to overpower his calculating. He doesn't have to have a well-
ordered soul. In other words, he doesn't have to be a good man.4

He said that some individuals are superior to others. He argued that men were superior to
women, freemen were superior to slaves and Greeks were superior to barbarian he linked the
relation between man and woman to that of master and servant. He held that men were fit to

3
Good Citizen vs Good Man; https://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/46994.html accessed on 17-04-
2018,11:00pm
4
ibid

9
command and women for obedience. He argued that woman is weak of will and therefore
incapable of independence of character or position her best condition is a quiet home life. While
she is ruled by man in her external relation s, she may reign supreme isn domestic affairs. Thus
woman’s rule should be confined to sphere of family which is natural institution, it craters good
of woman as well as man. Aristotle seeks to exclude women from domain of citizenship on this
ground. Aristotle strongly believed and justified the institution of slavery. He opined slaves as
the possession of the family or, in other words, was considered the property of the master or the
family. He stated that slavery is natural and beneficial to both the masters as well as the slaves.

He was of the belief that the slaves have no reasoning power despite the ability to
understand and follow their intellect. Therefore, according to Aristotle, natural slaves are those
who understand reason but possess no reasoning ability.5

The logic given by him was that those who were not virtuous were slaves and that it was
possible to determine who is virtuous and who is not. He further stated that as there are
inequalities with reference to their capabilities and capacities, all those who had higher capacities
were called masters and the rest are slaves. He also categorically stated that slave belonged to the
master and not vice versa6
Slavery is a natural phenomenon. The superior would rule over the inferior just as the
soul rules over the body and reason over appetite. In other words, people with superior reasoning
powers would rule over those inferior in reasoning. The masters are stated to be physically and
mentally strong than the slaves. So, this set-up naturally makes the former the master, and the
latter the slave
Slaves are considered necessary because they provide leisure that was most essential for
the welfare of the state. Aristotle stated that slavery benefited the slaves as well. Because by
being a slave, he would be able to share the virtues of the master and elevate himself.

Aristotle was of the opinion that slaves have sustained the Greek social and economic
system, and they helped Greece against social disorder and chaos. He stated that slavery is a

5
Subrata Mukherjee; Great western political thinkers Vol. 2: Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC); Deep & Deep Publications,
New Delhi
6
ibid

10
social necessity. It was complementary to the slaves as well as the masters and that it aids in
perfection.

Aristotle approved slavery only under certain conditions, as follows:

1. Only those who were mentally deficient and virtuously not superior should be
enslaved. Aristotle, however, never agreed to the enslavement of prisoners of war because
victory in the war does not necessarily mean intellectual superiority of the victor or the mental
deficiency of the vanquished. He was against the idea of slavery by force.

2. Aristotle insisted that masters must treat their slaves properly, and strongly propagated
that cruel masters must be subjected to legal punishments.

3. He advocated the liberation of only those slaves whose conduct was good and who
developed capacity for reasoning and virtue.

4. Slavery was essential for the all-round development but the master has no right to
misuse his power. Slaves are only assistants but not subordinates.

11
 CHAPTER – 4
ARISTOTLE ON STATE

Aristotle, the father of political science, says that person is a social animal and is
different from the other animals because of his civilized nature or nature of going from good to
better and from better to the best. Human progress and cultured status is impossible without
interrelations. So, man prefers to live with the others to get various basic needs that cannot be
achieved lonely. To get the very basic needs, man and women, roaster and slaves came together
and as a. result, the first institution of human civilization, family, was formed. When families
increased, they made villages and tribes to solve some greater needs. Due to some other greater
problems and needs, the tribes and villages united in a single and greater institution, the state.

Aristotle State concept shows that he believed in evolutionary or historical theory of the
origin of state. Therefore his approach in this connection is correct. Man as a civilized individual
cannot survive without state and if he claims, then it means from human beings, he is nation-less,
lawless, and homeless. He is either above or below humanity

Nature of Aristotle State

Aristotle's concept of "social or political animal" can be explained from the two aspects:

Firstly, the growth or development of all kinds of animals is natural and evolutionary.
They develop from single and simple to complex through stepwise progress. Similarly, state is
the result of an evolution. Individuals' natural tendency compels them to be organized through
families, families unite in villages/tribes and. expanded form of a tribe or village is state.
Therefore formation of the state is not a designed activity but this is the outcome of human needs
and a result of gradual development.
Secondly, Aristotle seems to believe in the organic theory that means state is like an
individual and individual has a body which is made of certain organs like head, arms, legs and
face etc. In the same way, state is a body and individuals are its organs. Aristotle does not like
too much state interference in the affairs of its citizens and gives certain liberties tend rights to

12
individuals. The civilized life of individuals start from the family reaches its top in the form of
state. Therefore family is the starting point and state is the last point of human development.
Although most of the needs are fulfilled in family, villages and tribes but the super sufficient life
is not possible without state. Therefore state is a natural need of human uplift. Aristotle explains
the concept of government and divided government in various organs i.e. legislature, executive
and judiciary.7
Aristotle’s classification of states is based on two principles:
(1) The number of persons who exercise supreme power;

(2) The ends they seek to serve self-interest or benefit of the community.

Aristotle was of the view that when the rulers aimed at the good of the community, the
states would be a pure form of state. When the rulers in such a state became selfish, the state
would be called a perverted state.

According to Aristotle, if sovereignty resides in one person, it is Monarchy. Its

perverted form is Tyranny. If sovereignty resides in a small minority of the population, it is
Aristocracy. If this small minority uses the sovereignty for its own selfish ends, it is Oligarchy. If
the sovereign power resides in a large proportion of the population, it is polity. Its perverted form
is Democracy.

Aristotle’s Cycle of political change:

Aristotle has not only given the classification of states or governments, he has also tried
to investigate their development and cycle of change. According to him, change has taken place
in all the forms of administration as a natural process, because the forms of state revolve like the
wheels of a cycle.8

7
Umar Faroo, Aristotle State, Concept, Nature, Aims & Objectives of Aristotle State;
http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/law/426-aristotle-state-concept-nature-aims-a-objectives-of-
aristotle-state, accessed on 16-04-2018,4:00pm
8
Pooja, Classification of Government According to Aristotle;
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-government-sccording-aristotle/308, accessed on 17-
04-2018, 7:00pm

13
 According to him, “The first governments were kingships; probably for this reason, in
olden times, when cities were small, men of eminent virtues were few. They were made kings
because they were made benefactors and hence benefits could only be bestowed by virtuous
men. But when many persons equal in merit arose, against the pre-eminence of one, they formed
a Commonwealth and set up a constitution. The ruling class soon deteriorated and enriched
themselves out of the public treasury. Riches became the path to honour and hence oligarchies
grew up.

They passed into tyrannies, and tyrannies into democracies. The love of gain in the
ruling classes always tended to diminish their number and so it strengthened the masses. The
masses, in the end, set upon their masters and established democracies”.

It is clear from this statement of Aristotle that first of all monarchy war established in
the society and the superior person in the society was elected as king. After some time when the
kings began to exploit the masses for their selfish ends, tyranny was established.

People did not tolerate this type of administration for long and they gave the sovereign
power to a few intellectuals. Thus, Aristocracy was established. With the lapse of time, the
character of Aristocracy deteriorated and Oligarchy was established. But the people could not,
for long, tolerate a government, the aim of which was the benefit of the ruling class-alone. When
opportunity came, citizens as a whole made a successful revolt against such authority and
established a Polity, the supreme power being vested in the hands of a large proportion of the
population.

It was used by them for the common good, “hen Polity became perverted, it was
substituted by Democracy. Democracy degenerates and people rise in revolt against it and thus
democracy disappears. Again the people elect a warrior-statesman as their administrator and
Monarchy is established. In this way, Aristotle’s cycle of political change revolves.

14
 CHAPTER – 5
RELEVANCE OF CITIZENSHIP ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

For Aristotle the human is "by nature" destined to live in a political association. Yet not
all who live in the political association are citizens, and not all citizens are given equal share in
the power of association. Manual workers women and slaves were denied the right to citizenship.
Then citizenship was regarded as the prerogative of small states with a population of less than
ten thousand. In the present day world all these characteristics of citizenship seem too irrelevant.
Today all countries and all races are regarded as to be fit for citizenship; every adult member of
the political community is now entitled to the rights of citizenship irrespective of race, cast, sex,
or economic status. Citizenship is granted to people only if a person participates in
administration of justice and legislation. In other words, a citizen must possess the essential
attribute of ruling and being ruled, at the same time. In his scheme, “leisure” remains an essential
condition of citizenship because without it none can cultivate virtue and devote themselves to the
affairs of the state. Aristotle excludes women, old people and children from the category of
citizens because they are intellectually inferior; physically unfit and politically immature. In any
case for a proper appreciation of Aristotle’s view we must keep the conditions of his time in our
mind. Aristotle’s idea of citizenship was a narrow one it was contrary to the modern idea of
citizenship as only few people were eligible to be citizen and women, artisans, slaves were
excluded from the citizenship. Aristotle’s citizenship is extremely limited to privileged few.
Property or citizenship qualification is exaggerated so as to neglect the poor and working classes.
By making leisure an essential criterion for citizenship, he neglects the manual working class-
people. Slaves are considered necessary because they provide leisure that was most essential for
the welfare of the state. Aristotle stated that slavery benefited the slaves as well. Because by
being a slave, he would be able to share the virtues of the master and elevate himself. The idea of
citizenship is contrary to modern notion of Democracy premised on political equality. Despite
several shortcomings, one cannot deny that it was a first systematic effort to outline a scheme for
establishing a relationship between the political community and its members. He offered a theory
of citizenship which was primarily intended for the city state.

15
 CHAPTER– 6
CONCLUSION

Aristotle’s concept of citizenship particularly eulogizes the Greek civilization of his times
and dubs other races savage and barbarians. Again among the Greeks he accepts the superiority
of a particular class whose members were termed as ‘freemen’. Manual workers women and
slaves were denied the right to citizenship. Then citizenship was regarded as the prerogative of
small states with a population of less than ten thousand. In the present day world all these
characteristics of citizenship seem too irrelevant. Today all countries and all races are regarded
as to be fit for citizenship; every adult member of the political community is now entitled to the
rights of citizenship irrespective of race, cast, sex, or economic status. The view that woman is
by nature inferior to man and her glory lies in obeying the commands of the man is now treated
as outdated and retrogrades. Today we regard women as equivalent to men in terms of talent and
accept their role as a companion, collaborator and source of inspiration for men. Aristotle’s plea
for assigning inferior status to women does not stand to reason, from the point of view of modern
feminism.

In this modern era we treat slavery as a total inhuman and unnatural. It is improper to
treat manual labor as inferior to mental labor. Then we can’t accept the view that nature has
made some people fit for manual labor and others for mental labor. This view was induced by a
racist ideology. Aristotle restored to this ideology to establish that ‘Hellenic peoples’ (the
Greeks) were fit to rule over so called ‘barbarians’ (the non Greeks). In any case for a proper
appreciation of Aristotle’s view we must keep the conditions of his time in our mind. In those
days slavery was not only in vogue it was the backbone of their economy. Inferior position of
woman and the right to property being confined to men also comprised the basis of their social
organization. Aristotle as a pragmatic philosopher did not like to destroy these features of the
social organization. He insisted on strengthening these features for the preservation of moral life.
He was not in the favor of harsh treatment of slaves and pleaded for showing generosity towards
slaves.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

➢ Subrata Mukherjee; Great western political thinkers Vol. 2: Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC);
Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi

➢ O. P. Gauba; Western Political Thought; Macmillan Publishers, Delhi

➢ M. L. Ahujha, Western Political Thought Dominant Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd;
New Delhi

Internet sources:

➢ http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/law/426-aristotle-state-concept-nature-
aims-a-objectives-of-aristotle-state
➢ http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-government-sccording-
aristotle/308
➢ https://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/46994.html

17