Aristotle on the politeia and its role in his political science.

Aristotle did not invent the concept of the politeia, it was a concept commonly used by Greek

political thinkers, as early as Herodotus, to refer to the form or types of political rule a polis had

governing it. Yet Aristotle understood that the politeia played the crucial and central role in

helping those who sought to understand the character and working of a political community than

did the mere referencing to the political community itself. Thus the politeia offered a way to

access the inner working of the political community and in doing so allow those observing to

understand it better and more truly.

Aristotle says that the politeia as a thing not only refers to the ruling part or body (the

politeuma) that actually held ruler or control over the given political community, but also the

very way of life and overall political culture that shapes that given political community. The

poliswhich was the form of the political community at the time of the Ancient Greekswas

understood to be an aggregation of the various households (oikoi) who shared the same space or

territory and in doing so generally shared a common life together as a single community. Given

that the household (oikos) itself was an aggregation of different relationships that are found

living within it (i.e., the husband-wife, parent-child, sibling-sibling, and master-slave/servant

relationships), this makes the polis a composite of a composite. Thus the nature of the polis

needs to be understood as an aggregation of discrete parts whose only real unity arises out of the

their common shared life together in that shared space. And the political is the inter-

arrangement, structure, or order of which part of the polis rules (that is to say has authority and

control) over the whole community and thus to rule for the benefit the whole community and not

merely themselves or their friends and family.

 Aristotle at first suggests that the politeia could be understood to be defined by two

characteristics(1) the number of rulers and (2) the justice of the rulers rule. As to the

characteristic of the number of rulers (1), he presents us a very common sense division between

the one, the few, or the many. As to the characteristic of the justice of the rulers rule (2), it is

divided between the rulers ruling for the benefit or utility or good of themselves or for the sake

of the whole community. Here Aristotle does not insist as Plato had that justice would require

that rulers rule only for the sake of the ruled, but that that they ought to rule for the sake and

benefit of the whole community and not some particular part. And if the rulers ruled for their

own interest at the sake of the others in the community such rule would resemble in character

despotic rule or masterywhich is understood to be rule over slaves/servants where the rule is

for the sake of the rulers and not the ruled. Out of the juxtaposition of these two categories

Aristotle presents the first typology of politeias:

Common advantage Advantage of the ruler

One Kingship Tyrant
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many politeia Democracy

What is interesting in this first typology of politeia is the name given for the politeia of the rule

of the many for the common advantage is the same world for the thing he is trying to classify

politeia. Thus Aristotle uses the same word to signify one particular type or variety that he uses

to label the whole class of things he is trying to describe. It would be like if he had given a list of

species or one of the specie was called specie. Aristotle in doing this had many commentators

and translators perplexed what to do with this politeia called politeia. And using politeia to refer

to a specific variety of politeia was rather unique to Aristotle, as neither Thucydides, Hesiod,
Xenophon, or Plato did this. Plato speaks of the timocracy, the rule of the warriors or honor

loversAristotle is wholly about such a regime in his Politics. And because of this most

translators and commentators opt to call this particular form of politeia as polity or something

like constitutional rule or as republic (but that would be problematic as the Latin for politeia is

res publica).

Yet right after Aristotle presented this six fold typology in his Politics, he immediately

challenges the validity of this just presented typology by making the claim that what truly

defines the nature of an oligarchy is not the fact that its rulers are few but that they are the rich,

the wealthy. He argues that even the ruling rich or wealthy where many (and the largest and

most numerous parteven the majority) and not few it rule would remain oligarchic than

democratic. And this is as true about the rule of the poor or the vulgar (the demos)that if the

few poor or vulgar ruled over a political community its rule would be democratic in character.

Thus the number of rulers seems to be accidental to the character of the given politeia. What is

more important and more critical is, what exactly is the group that is ruling? Who are they? Are

they the wealthy/rich or the poor? Aristotle suggest that what defines and distinguishes one

politeia from another is the claim made by each group on who should rule and why. Thus each

politeia advances a specific claim about the justice and justification of its rule over the political

community.

At Politics 3.10 Aristotle allows each form of politeia to put forward their individual

claim (or justification) to rule. In this particular presentation Aristotle only does not let two of

the six types of politeia present their claim as the other four are allowed toone is tyranny and

the other the politeia called politeia. Whereas the claim of tyranny is obviousmight makes

rightthe claim of the politeia names politeia is not obvious. And given the very strangeness in
its very nameone would expect some clarification would be givenbut in Book 3 of the

Politics none is given. So at the end we have five claimsfour explicitly presented in the text,

one only implied and they are the following:

Kingship wisdom
Aristocracy Virtue/excellence
Oligarchy wealth
Democracy Equality given no claim or virtue is so
clearly/visibility so as to justify the rule of one
human being over another
Tyranny Power

In Politics 3 the claim of justice makes by each politeia seem to be what truly defines it. Yet

where we turn to Politics 4 we not only return to the original six fold typology of politeia of

Politics 3 but we once again see Aristotle once again drop it with the claim that a politeia with a

much more complex one that not only has politeia varying across types but there is also variation

within each type as well. Thus Aristotle suggests that there is a high degree of variation within a

specific form of politeia than there is variance among them.

Yet what is shocking in Aristotles treatment of politeia in Book 4 is that he focuses more

clearly on the politieas of democracy and oligarchy. He says he has already discussed kingship

and aristocracy already and argues that what remains is to discuss what has yet to be discussed

from the original six forms of politeiaoligarchy, democracy, politeia called politeia, and

tyranny, but what happens is somewhat different than promised. Instead he spends the first three

chapters going once again over the what the politeia is what is it composed of and then as he

flushes out the various parts of multitudes (the many) and notables (the few) that exist within and

form most political communities only then and there to give an account of the variations within

the democratic politeia.

 After the account of the variations of the democratic politeia, the next chapter he then

presents the variations of the oligarchic politeia. One would expect for him to now turn to the

next politeiaeither tyranny or the politeia called politeiabut he does not, rather he

represented both the account of the variations of democratic politeias and then oligarchic

politeias. Only after this representation of the variations of democratic (which slightly differs

from the earlier account) and oligarchic politeias he then given a blurred account of both

aristocracy (which he said he had already discussed) and the politeia called politeiawhich

unlike the account of the varieties of democratic and oligarchic politeias does not offer clear cut

variations for each he seems to all too often blur them both with either oligarchy or democracy.

These two chapters are some of the most confusing and difficult to read and understand in

Aristotles Politics and remains an endless source of controversy over what exactly he trying to

argue here remains with us till today.

It is in this more complex form of the politeia that we just mentioned above that Aristotle

clearly distinguish his teaching on it from that of Plato and Xenophon (also different from that of

Thucydides and Herodotus as well). In fact later writers like Plutarch and PolibusGreeks who

are writing and living at the time after Rome has conquered Greece and rules over itspeak of

the politeia more in akin to Plato than to Aristotle, especially Aristotles account of Politics book

4, 5, and 6. The fact that so little is mentioned of Aristotles account about politeia among the

Roman and early Christian authors it is commonly believed that these authors either did not

bother to read or even have access to Aristotles Politics.

Aristotles account of the politeia also fundamentally differs from that of Platos and

Polibuss accounts by his underscoring that change of politeia will occur between politeia but

also within variations as well. Both Plato and Polibus have much narrow understanding of
politeia and thus present change or politeia as of a cyclical path. In fact their use of this cyclical

change from one form of politeia to the next, in a particular path from kingship to aristocracy, to

timocracy (which for Plato is the rule by the warriors), to oligarchy, to democracy, to tyranny.

This circular motion of the cycle of politeia change is one of the reason such change of a politeia

would be called a revolution. Hence is the power this cyclical vision of political change was.

But Aristotle account of this change of one type of politeia was radically at odds with his teacher

Plato. Aristotle held that that change could not only occur from one type to another as well as

within type from one variation to other, but also that there was no one clear set pattern or cycle

that political change of politeia would take. Aristotle would argue that yes some changes were

more likely and others less likely but others changes were possible. He also argues that the cycle

did not necessary repeat in the way Plato presented.

When we look at what Aristotle shows us about the way political change can emerge and

occur from one form of politeia to another, either a change within or among types, we see that he

offers a model of political change that not only as dynamic as many contemporary models of

political systems/regimes we find in todays social scientific study of politics, which we call

political science. Yet Aristotles treatment of politeia differs from most if not all contemporary

models found in todays political science because his approach allows both strong quantitative

and qualitative characteristics (not requiring the sacrificing of one for the other that is common

in most contemporary approaches) that also are highly empirical in character yet offering great

prescriptive richness that much empirical political typically lacks.