I have had two weeks off of class due to a fall break and being out of town for a funeral. In that time, I’ve finished reading Aristotle’s Politics and have started in on Locke’s Second Treatise on Government.
Next week I’ll post a review of the Politics edition that I used because it is phenomenal and every student of Aristotle should have this, and then it’ll be on to Locke and some other things that have been knocking around in my mind.
Since we’ll be discussing the very end of Aristotle in class today, I had just a couple of quick closing thoughts on Books 7 and 8.
It’s first important to reiterate that in writing the Politics, Aristotle is operating from the basic premise that humans are incomplete without a society in which they can learn and grow in virtue. Thus he sees the polity as being the work of human effort, and justice and virtue as it’s end goal.
This is not a collectivist vision per se, but it’s certainly not American individualism that sees the individual complete in his/herself.
This is a critical concept to grasp because the closing books of the Politics are Aristotle’s discussions on maintenance of a political society wherein he delves into issues of policy and order.
Of greatest interest to me, and most relevant to the American context I think, are fascinating insights into Aristotle’s thoughts on education and sex.
Education is inherently political, so does it teach the politics we want?
In Aristotle’s world, an education system is created with an aim to promoting virtue and civic responsibility. The private world of the individual is where a trade is learned, but public responsibility is learned at school.
The American education system, however, is based around job skills, not civic skills. The equation is reversed. Schools teach jobs, home is supposed to teach civics.
This creates an interesting question, “What kind of political society does this develop?” Aristotle already has provided his vision of an ideal polity as being a mix of democracy and oligarchy. We must thus assume that he is suggesting an education system that is most conducive to promulgating such an order. So I don’t think we can expect a democracy to grow out of an education system that doesn’t really teach the civic values of a democracy.
The regime: Sex educator in chief?
Sex is a particularly interesting point here. Living in America today, it is impossible to think about such an issue without considering the discussion on marriage equality. In justifying their position, I’ve oft heard it said that ancient civilizations had a generally tolerant view of homosexuality. That is certainly true as Aristotle acknowledges it in a very off hand way in a couple of places. However, he also notes that citizens have a responsibility to bear children to preserve the polity. This raises an interesting point in terms of how much influence in sexual behavior the government is allowed to have.
Invitations to the government to regulate and define American marriage may seem just, but carries with it the implicit permission of the government to keep defining terms of sexual behavior that ultimately will be focused more on state preservation than individual happiness. It’s a double edged sword that can grant rights one moment,then redefine them the next.
Aldous Huxley was well aware of this same political tendency toward self preservation extending towards a government’s rule over sexual behavior and reproduction in Brave New World.
Please understand me,this is not an argument for or against gay marriage, but simply an observation on the complexity of having the state involved at any level in circumscribing the sexual behavior if it’s citizens. Aristotle seems comfortable with accepting the logical outcome of regulating sex, are we?
The relevance of “Big Picture” politics
I was first introduced to the Politics as a senior in college and was immediately struck by Aristotle’s focus on basic principles and “big picture” approach to political science. In a world where data and quantitative methods dominate, Aristotle remains relevant in that he provides the framework for human political behavior that much of the more data based research hangs on.
Reading Aristotle again, ten years later confirms to me the importance of “principle thought” to understanding “data thought.” It guides our questions of research and provides not only the sets of working hypotheses, but also the parameters which guide their development. People ask me why I’m doing political philosophy when many of the world politics practitioners at my institution are quantitative researchers. To them I say, “Without a philosophy, numbers have no meaning.”