Politics
“What was Aristotle’s life?’ Well, the answer lay in a single sentence: ‘He was born, he thought, he died.’ All the rest is pure anecdote.” — Martin Heidegger
The School of Athens by Raphael
To Aristotle, the polis is always the whole, and the best way to understand the whole is to examine its parts. In each book of Politics, he walks us through different parts of the polis. He discusses households in book one, the individual in books two, three, seven, and eight, and social groups in books four, five, and six.
Aristocracies
Different types of aristocracies include:
True Aristocracies — The only constitutions that align, unconditionally, with virtue. These emerge, at least in some form, when officials are not elected on the basis of wealth but on the basis of merit. Therefore, they are the only constitutions where a person can be both a good man and a good citizen.
Where a constitution looks to wealth, virtue, and the people to determine officeholders
Democratic-Aristocracies — Where a constitution looks to virtue and the people to determine officeholders
Those that lean more toward polity than oligarchy
For all Aristocracies, the defining characteristic is virtue.
Citizens: Who is a citizen? Who isn’t?
Constitutions define the governing body of the city. To investigate constitutions, we must examine the citizen. Aristotle provides us with two helpful definitions here:
Citizen — someone who participates in "judgment and office." The nature of "judgment and office" varies depending on the type of constitution
City — a multiple of citizens adequate for self-sufficiency in living, ultimately defined by its constitution
But what is meant by judgment? By office?
To be a citizen, your participation has to include: (A) The exercise of a capacity (deliberation/judgment), (B) that maps on in an appropriate way (intentionally vague) to one’s conception of the good (Aristotle believes that everyone, implicitly or explicitly, has a conception of the good). For example: In Crete, they have assemblies, but it is the worst form of oligarchy. This is bc whatever they’re doing at the assembly fails to meet this model. If all you can do is choose two oligarchic families, then you’re not truly aligning with your conception of the good. (C) Satisfies one’s conception of what one deserves or is worth.
Modern citizenship arguably falls short on all three, and this is very much a political failure. Part of the value of thinking with Aristotle today is in identifying these failures and attempting to remedy them.
Offices can be definite or indefinite. These may include things we do not commonly consider offices today, such as the office of the voter or the office of the jury. Both of these responsibilities can be helped by all citizens and are considered indefinite, meaning they do not expire or last a certain amount of time.
In a sense, the responsibilities of an indefinite office define whether it is a democracy or an oligarchy and therefore, who is a citizen. If wealth is a requirement for your judgment to be taken into account, a constitution is moving towards an oligarchy. Aristotle mentions that there can be oligarchies that deceive the demos into believing they live in a democracy, but he argues that this can never last. Deception is not a long-term solution. And (Substantive) citizenship is what mediates belonging. This belonging has normative value and practice upshot (whether or not people are in constant rebellion). So, deception can forestall rebellion for some time, but not forever.
Remember, if humans are political animals, and what is unique about men is having a decision-making capacity, and that’s what being a citizen is, then(!) citizenship is an exercise of humanity.
Aristotle's citizen definition is unaffected by the change of a constitution, as it is simply holding a sort of office. So, if the person holds the office, he is a citizen, and if he doesn't, he is not. The way of achieving that office is less relevant.
In chapter five, he addresses the question: Should citizenship include "vulgar craftsmen?" If so, how does that affect the pursuit of virtues necessary for citizenship? The answer is: not in cities that award citizenship based on virtue.
An essential qualification is that an Aristotelian citizen is *not* someone who (paraphrasing) " without whom the city would not exist." The issue is that there is necessary work to keep a city functioning, and committing your time to this work (as a craftsman, for example) makes it impossible to pursue virtue. But, because laborers cannot pursue virtuous activities, their participation in governance makes it impossible to award offices in accordance with virtue. However, many artisans become rich. So, in oligarchies, where participation in public office is based on high property assessments, it is possible to include "vulgar craftsmen" as citizens.
Constitutions: Basic Types
Constitution — the ordering of a city’s various offices and, above all, the office that controls everything. The term is synonymous with “governing body”
There is an ideal version and a perverse version of each type of constitution. To differentiate, Aristotle makes two comparisons: slavery and household management. In slavery, the entire relationship is for the benefit of the master, or, at least, it is as much for the master as the slave will permit without revolt. In household management, the relationship is for the benefit of the whole. The household manager is doing a service to the rest of the family by making a good home. In constitutions, the ideal versions are similar to household management (public service), and the perverse versions are similar to slavery (tyranny).
Now, onto the different types of constitutions. Here, I turn to Jon Bi’s summary. He writes:
“Aristotle first describes six types of constitutions across two axes: the number of people who rule, and its ideal and perverted state. Ideal means that the ruler(s) make decisions on the behalf of everyone; perversion means that the ruler(s) only care about their own interests. Kingship and Tyranny are if one person rules ideally or perversely respectively. Aristocracy and Oligopoly are if a group of people rule ideally or perversely respectively. Polity and Democracy are if everyone ruled ideally or perversely respectively.”
There are a few puzzles about the three-by-two box. First, who should be Kurios (control/authority)? Is it the one, the few, or the many? Another is that word “polity,” which Aristotle uses to describe the ideal rule by the many, is also the same word for “constitution.” Is there something to read into there?
Of deviations from true constitutions, tyranny is the worst, oligarchy second worst, and democracy is the most moderate. In reverse, a polity (the ideal form of democracy) is the worst of the true constitutions. As it is ruled by so many, they even out, and have the lowest ceiling and highest floor.
Constitutions: More Complex Types
The reason for there being so many different constitutions is that cities are comprised of different parts. In each instance, a different part may come to rule the city and write a constitution that best suits the ruling part, or, in the ideal sense, writes a constitution that is what the ruling part can conceptualize as best for all (which is not the same as best for all).
For example, cities are comprised of households, those households can be broken up into rich and poor, and the rich and poor can be broken up into farmers, traders, craftsmen, etc. A constitution written by poor farmers will be different than one written by rich craftsmen.
This may be best thought of in terms of mathematical combinations, where the formula is as follows:
By assigning the total number of parts to n, and assigning the number of groups needed to couple together to hold power to r, we can get the theoretical amount of constitutions in the form of nCr.
Aristotle defines each social group:
Farmers
Vulgar — craftsmen who provide the things the city cannot survive without
Traders — concerned with selling and buying, retail trade, and commerce
Laborers
Warriors
(unnamed group) — the group making assignments and rendering judgment about what is just
Rich — perform public service by means of its property
Elected Officials
Constitutions: Most Common
In theory, there can be an infinite number of constitutions, but two are the most common: democracy and oligarchy. These two, along with their more ideal counterparts (polity and aristocracy), are worth studying more closely. These definitions are determined by what group is in control. The social groups are made up of different parts, but overlap (think of a Venn diagram) to form one cohesive group in power.
Democracy — when a city is controlled by an overlap of the free, the poor, and the majority
Oligarchy — when a city is controlled by an overlap of the few, the rich, and the better bred.
There can be situations where the constitution is democratic and the customs and style of governance lean towards oligarchy, and vice versa. This is especially common during transitional periods from one constitution to another. Still, it is those who change the constitution who are ultimately in power.
Constitutions: Creation
When Aristocracies & Polities are out of reach, the answer is not: look at the best constitution and make yours like that one. Instead, you should look at your constraints (population), and work toward the best constitution in a way that best suits your constraints.
Aristocracies, and even polities, fall out of reach for most cities. So, when the best constitutions are out of reach, what is the best constitution that is achievable in most cities?
To answer this question, Aristotle likens the city or constitution to an individual and applies his middling approach developed in the Nichomachean Ethics. As Jonathan Bi describes, “Each virtue is between two vices: one extreme and one a deficiency. Thus, each virtue is a golden mean. E.g. courage is the mean between the two extremes of rashness and cowardness.” In Book IV chapter eleven, Aristotle writes “these same defining marks must also define the virtue and vice of a city or constitution. For the constitution is a sort of life of a city.”
The is first golden mean is applied to wealth, as he praises the need for a strong middle class. Those who have lived too much, whether it be wealth, strength, or friends, lack the ability to be ruled. Those that have too little only know how to be ruled in a way that slaves are ruled. This results in groups of masters and slaves, one grows envious and the other contemptuous, and friendship between the two becomes impossible. A true political community is built upon friendship, and this is extremely difficult with large gaps of inequality. In the modern world, we know this all too well: Inequality leads to societal tension.
It is those in the middle that allows for an effective hierarchical system and a functioning city. It is this group that most effectively develops and preserves a constitution, as they are the only ones free of factional conflict.
Constitutions: Preservation
A constitution survives when the part that wants to endure is stronger than the part that does not. In cities where the free and poor are the strongest, democracies will be preserved. In cities where the few rich are strongest, oligarchies will be preserved.
However, a power dynamic too far in one direction will create a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Tyranny leads to revolt. Revolt leads to constitutional change.The legislator should acknowledge this and try to balance out his constitution by giving concessions to the weaker party. If a city is built for a democratic constitution, the legislator should make a democratic constitution that is as close to oligarchic as possible. If a city is built for an oligarchy, the legislator should do the opposite. This is how we can move away from democracies and oligarchies and towards polities.
Democracies
Demos — the common people of an ancient Greek state, the populace as a political unit, especially in a democracy
As different groups of poor, free, and majority hold power, we get different types of democracies:
Equality first — here, the poor enjoy no more superiority than the rich.
Low Property Assessment — Offices are filled on the basis of a very low property assessment.
True Democracy with Rule of Law — All offices are shared by all citizens, but the law rules. In modern terms, I believe this would be equivalent to every single legislative issue being a ballot issue.
True Democracy without Rule of Law — (ultimate democracy) All offices are shared by all citizens, but the multitude rules rather than the law. This occurs when decisions are made by popular decree, rather than by following the law.
This ultimate democracy, true democracy without rule of law, is a form of decentralized tyranny.
The distinguishing causes between rule by law and rule by officeholders are (1) popular leaders who, by bringing everything before the people, are responsible for decrees being in control rather than the laws. (2) Time for leisure by the ruling party. When farmers, for instance, are the dominant social group, they do not have time for leisure and therefore do not have time for politics. Therefore, the law governs. If the ruling group does have time for leisure, the officeholders rule.
Aristotle refers to the orienting conception of value—the idea that citizens align themselves around, the fundamental principle—as the hypothesis of each constitution. The hypothesis of Democracy is freedom, as people claim to “share in freedom” under this constitution. But, Aristotle argues there is a separation here between perception and reality. Meaning, that citizens of democracies are not truly free, although they believe themselves to be.
Aristotle tries to parse out what exactly people mean when they discuss freedom and distinguishes between two types: negative and positive freedom. He writes, “from it (liberty) arises the demand not to be ruled, best of all to be ruled by no one, or failing that, to rule and be ruled in turn.”
Negative liberty — (personal freedom) living as one wishes
Positive Liberty — (political freedom) ruling and being in turn
Another important note: The verb that is being translated as “to rule” also means “to hold office.”
Equality & Justice
Justice in Each Type of Government
So, how do oligarchies and democracies treat justice? Again, returning to Jon Bi’s summary. He writes:
“The first branch of justice, universal justice in the realm of politics manifests as a will to benefit the common good. This idea is taken up again by Aquinas, Rousseau, etc.
The second branch, particular justice, in the political realm, is defined by equality. But it is a specific form of equality: equality for equals and inequality for unequals. The problem with the oligarchic constitution is that because the oligarchs consider themselves unequal and superior in one domain (wealth), they consider themselves superior in all domains (political governance). The problem with the democratic constitution is that because the democrats consider themselves equal in one domain (freedom), they consider themselves equal in all domains (political governance).
Aristotle did not believe in an objectively "better person". We can only compare when we put them up against subjective standards of measurement. “According to this argument every good would have to be commensurable with every other. For if being a certain height counted more, height, in general, would be in competition with both wealth and freedom."
Thus, it would be arbitrary to distribute political power based on criteria irrelevant to one's ability to rule. "For among flute players equally proficient in the craft, those who are of better birth do not get more or better flutes, since they will not play the flute any better if they do." The state is neither a business enterprise nor is its end to promote liberty and equality, thus both the oligarch's and the democrat's constitutions are wrong. The end of the state, as we have already discussed, is so that its citizens may pursue the Good life. Thus, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic. Political power should be given to those who make the greatest contribution to the community through their virtue, property, and freedom.”
Eudaimonia and the Good
Broadly defined, an Aristotelian good is “the thing for which we act.” It is the end to any means. Aristotelian goods are hierarchical. Good A is subordinate to Good B, if it acts Good A means to achieve Good B. For example, pen making is a subordinate good because it is a means for writing, and writing is a subordinate good to communication, and so on.
Aristotle believes the ultimate good is happiness, or eudaimonia, which translates to “living well” or “human flourishing.”
Faction
Aristotle claims that many constitutions have come into existence because of errors about justice and proportionate equality. For example, democracy arose from those who are equal in some respect thinking themselves to be unconditionally equal. Oligarchy, on the other hand, arose from those who are unequal in one respect (money), taking themselves to be unequal in all respects.
Faction — a dissenting group within a larger group
It is due to these errors of justice and proportionate equality that faction emerges. In this case, faction refers specifically to those who oppose a constitution. Faction will always emerge in the absence of proportional equality—when unequal do not receive what is proportionate. This equality can take two forms:
Numerical equality — being the same and equal in number or size
Ratio-based equality — what is the same and equal in ratio
Equality is not just in regard to money, but also to status or honor.
Of course, there are many ways for people to feel wronged without explicit problems in the constitution. Aristotle sees factions emerging from small interpersonal issues that seem to engulf an entire city. There is a quote worth stating entirely, “Factions arise, then, not about small things, but out of small things—it is about important things that people engage in factions.”
Many of these are obvious, such as wanton (deliberate and unprovoked) aggression leading to retribution, or resentment stemming from dishonor. Eventually, allies of both parties form groups, and factions are born. Some, however, are less obvious. For example, the threat of superiority refers to a single individual becoming more powerful than the city or the governing body. The issue is that superiority likely leads to loss of power for others, and possibly the transition from the rule of the many to the rule of the few, or rule of the few to rule of the one.
Another interesting one is the faction because of its location. This refers to geographic territories which are not easily made into one city or state, as people who live differently have different needs from their government.
Who engages in the faction? Those who believe they have gotten less than they deserve. This includes people who have gotten less than average and want equal treatment, as well as those who have gotten more than average, but feel they deserve even more.
The changes that are due to faction are twofold: (1) change from the constitution in place to another type of constitution (i.e., democracy to oligarchy, or vice versa), (2) the constitution is kept, but the positions of power change hands, or adjustments are made that give more or less power is given to specific position or people. This can be achieved either through deceit, persuasion, or force.
Friendship and Homonoia
In Tyrannies, there is no friendship (1161a31, Nicomachean Ethics).
Homonoia — the concept of order and unity, being of one mind together or union of hearts.
Epimalia — can be thought about as “the application of care”
Aristotle believed that the ideal society was defined by the pursuit of virtue, whereas democracies are defined by the pursuit of freedom. The pursuit of virtue requires leisure. So, citizens should work for the sake of leisure, and then use this leisure to pursue virtue. Public education, for example, is not compatible with a lack of leisure. Without child labor laws, children have to work and then cannot pursue education and virtue.
Friendship requires the same preconditions. The ideal polis requires enough surplus and enough leisure to turn their attention away from work and toward friendship and virtue.
Aristotle blurs the boundaries between the kinds (civic/utility, pleasant, virtue friends) of friendship. Types of friendship:
Utility Friendship — A relationship where two people have a common end, and can help each other achieve it. This type of friendship lasts only as long as there is a common advantage. Political friendship is a subset of this, and so would a working business relationship.
Pleasant Friendship — A relationship where two people enjoy each other's company, but do not necessarily care for the well-being of the other. This friendship is also transactional in that the relationship does not last if the two cannot offer each other pleasant company.
Virtue Friendship — A relationship where two people take pleasure in the good of the other. One is happy when the other is successful and sad when the other is in distress. Each truly wants what is best for the other and is willing to endure temporary discomforts for the sake of the friendship. This is the longest-lasting and truest form of friendship.
What is the distinction between Homodonia (sameness of opinion) and Homonoia (order and union)? The sameness of opinion (1) does not require knowing each other, and (2) can serve as the basis of collective action. But order and union require a set of knowledge about shared beliefs and include a capability of some action. Homonoia is more about constitutional settlements and significant collective opinions. It is a higher order of concord than the sameness of opinion and is found when people are in accord with themselves and others.
It was important for Aristotle to distinguish between political alliances and military/trade alliances. The difference is mainly determined by friendship. The city is the political association through which we pursue our ends collectively. Living well combines (1) virtue and (2) friends doing great things together. The polis makes it possible for its citizens to do things together, allowing them to live well. The alliance, on the contrary, only forms based on aligned interests.
Aristotle is trying to carve out how citizens relate to one another, which is especially difficult as cities get larger and larger. In modern cities, it is impossible to know everyone. So, what does civic friendship look like with strangers? This is unclear. There is heavy lifting to be done to translate Aristotle's principles of friendship from a polis to a nation-state. Further motivation for conceptualizing Homonoia can be found in the section on Polities.
Good men, good citizens, and good rulers
Is there a difference between a good man and a good citizen? Aristotle provides an answer in III.4: Yes. A good citizen acts in accordance with the constitution and aims to maintain it. In Book III, we established that preserving a constitution preserves a city. So, a good citizen seeks to protect the city by following and maintaining its constitution.
There are different constitutions, and each has its version of a good citizen. The definition of a good man, however, applies universally. "But the good man, we say, is such in accord with one virtue, namely, the complete one" (1277a33). As one is universal and one is not, a good man and a good citizen cannot (always) be the same thing.
What does it mean to be a good ruler?
Political Rule — a sort of rule exercised over those who are similar in kind (genos) and free.
A good citizen should be both a good ruler and a good follower. These are distinct skillsets, as one directs and the other follows. A political ruler must first learn to follow before he can lead. Aristotle gives the example of Jason, who said that he went hungry except when he was a tyrant, as he lacked the skill set of being a private citizen.
An interesting distinction: Plato and Aristotle agree that to rule, in the proper form, is to serve other people. Both would also agree on the improper form—those who, as said in III.6, want to rule like sick people need their medicine. For those who have seen Gladiator, consider Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) vs. Maximus (Russel Crowe).
However, Plato believes that the right people will have to be dragged to rule. Aristotle disagrees. He argues, ultimately, that ruling (and therefore serving other people) is good for you. It just isn’t something you should want to do all the time.
Laws
The legislator should look into four things when setting up his laws: (1) the territory, (2) the populace, (3) the neighboring territories, and (4) wealth.
This is important because it sets the stage for differing constitutions for different territories. For example, a city dominated by a few rich will likely be unable to maintain a democracy, and a city of many poor will not operate well in an oligarchy. The constitutions must fit the population, and the same applies to its geography, neighbors, and wealth.
Oligarchies
As different groups of rich and few hold power, we get different types of oligarchies:
Very High Property Assessment — offices filled on the basis of a very high property assessment that the poor do not share in the constitution, even though they are a majority.
Officials Filling Vacancy — maintaining the high property assessment requirement, but public offices are filled by other public officeholders.
Nepotist Oligarchy — the son succeeds the father, with the law ruling.
Dynasty — nepotism, with the officials ruling rather than the law
The type of oligarchy is determined by the number of people who own property and how much they own. When a relatively large few own a relatively small amount, we get type 1. When a single family owns a massive amount, we get a dynasty. Options two and three are middling points on the same scale.
Oligarchies and Democracies can operate on a spectrum. Oligarchies can move closer to democracies, as we see in type one, where anyone who achieves wealth participates. Or, they can move toward monarchy, as we see in dynasties. The same can be applied to democracy, which can move towards oligarchy by applying a low-level property-assessment requirement or, on the other end of the spectrum, toward true rule by the mob.
Ostracism
The legislator should aim at equality for equals, which is equivalent to the common good. Remember: citizens, defined as those who participate in public office and judgment, are equals.
A genuinely exceptional individual makes it difficult for non-exceptionals to be his equal. Aristotle considers Alexander, whom he taught, and other Macedonian Kings. This consideration raises an issue: What should rulers do with individuals way above the mean in virtue, wealth, and overall excellence?
Aristotle speaks of Thrasybulus, a tyrant, who considers a tale of a farmer leveling the field by taking away the ears of corn that were superior in height. He decides to do the same and ostracizes outstanding men in his city. This problem is not just an issue under tyranny, however. It occurs in all types of cities, just and unjust. Great men are ostracized in unjust cities for the benefit of the ruler and, in just cities, for the benefit of the citizens. Still, that does mean it's the right thing to do—it isn’t. Aristotle is unsure of the best solution here. If nothing else, he advises letting the superior man rule justly.
Partial Rule
When Aristotle is critical of oligarchy and democracy, it is because they’re forms of partial rule. Oligarchy is the rule of the rich few for the sake of the rich few, and democracy is the rule of the many poor for the sake of the many poor. When a part rules the whole, it is quite likely to rule in its own favor. So, cities ruled by a part rather than the whole will almost inevitably become unjust. An admirable goal, then, is to overcome rule by parts.
The Political Animal
Humanity is fundamentally social, with the power of speech and moral reasoning. This has two consequences: (1) We can decide what is good and bad, just and unjust, and act on it. And (2) as we are social creatures, we desire to live together, which gives us a better opportunity to live well. Therefore, man is, by nature, a political animal.
The Polis, Koinonia, and Kurios
Koinonia is the Greek word for community (“koin” is the route word for common). Aristotle uses the term to describe any human association. Initially, he describes the polis (Greek word for the city) as the community with control of all other communities. The reader sees this definition change as he moves from book to book. At some points, the polis is a collection of individuals; at other times, it is the collection of households; at others, the collection of social groups. All three descriptions are true simultaneously.
The Greek word Kurious is often translated as "sovereign," and words related to it are often taken to mean "control." But this isn't the same as being the sovereign over a vast empire. Aristotle uses the word control vaguely. He does so by using it to refer to two different types of rule: tyrannical and benevolent.
Physis can be translated as 'nature,' and Nomos can be translated as 'law,' 'convention,' or 'custom.' Aristotle offers an origin story for the polis in I.2 to show it is natural, as opposed to conventional. Sophists were interested in exploring what is by nature and what is by convention. The questions are something like: Do laws follow nature or not? Is justice by nature or conventional?
Questions to clarify the definition of a city:
How can we determine whether a city has performed an action? What about when it is under the control of a tyrant? If a city is a true democracy, its activities are those of its people. It's less clear otherwise.
When a city undergoes significant changes, is it the same city or a new one? If a city is a community of citizens sharing in a constitution, then when the constitution changes in form (eidos), so does the city. Otherwise, it remains the same.
Polities
A polity is a Greek word for constitution, but Aristotle uses this word to describe the ideal form of a rule by the many. This constitution acts as a combination of democracy and oligarchy but leans toward democracy. An aristocracy, by contrast, is a combination of democracy and oligarchy that leans toward oligarchy.
Three defining marks of polity are that they take the best aspects of both democracies and oligarchies. For example: To incentivize participation of the preferred group, oligarchies fine the rich if they do not serve on juries, and democracies pay the poor to serve on juries. Polities, instead, do both.
At different points, Aristotle notes that aristocracies and polities have such large overlaps that the two should be spoken about as one.
IV.9 discusses creating a polity and that agreement has to be between quite diverse elements in a city. In creating a polity, "both elements should be present, and also neither" (1295a35). This line is essential. By both elements, he refers to democracy and aristocracy. By both and neither, he creates an ambiguity that allows people to agree on a single constitution. The poor see that everyone has one vote and agree. The rich see that they get to actually run things and agree.
Except, somehow(!), the ambiguity has to be non-deceptive. This non-deception is done through a form of homonoia, as can be seen above. Aristotle believes this is possible. That is, there is a state where no one would wish for another constitution. That is the aim here and the motivation for conceptualizing homonoia.
Populists and Flattery
Flattery is generally understood to go hand-in-hand with tyranny and tyranny hand-in-hand with top-down rule. That is, the image of a tyrant that first comes to mind is a single individual or ruler. But Aristotle notes that the opposite can be true. Tyranny can also be bottom-up. Democracies, in their worst sense, can act as reverse tyrannies, where the popular leader is the flatterer and the people are the tyrant. This occurs when every matter is brought before the people rather than the law.
Public Office
There is a distinction made between indefinite and definite office. Indefinite officeholders are permanent and permissionless. Jurors are an example, voters are another. Athens also had the role of assemblymen, who essentially acted as unelected public officials. They would debate in the public square and could even enact laws.
Definite offices are temporary and elected; they also generally have some requirement of technical ability or virtue. Strategos (generals) was an example in Athens, but there were many. Any publicly elected office qualifies as a definite office.
In more democratic-leaning constitutions, the indefinite offices hold more power. In more aristocratic-leaning constitutions, definite offices hold more power. Athens had quite powerful indefinite offices; Sparta did not.
Social Groups: The rich, the poor, and the middle class
Aristotle divided social groups based on their functions for the city. The combination of each group and its functions leads to self-sufficiency. A city cannot be self-sufficient without farmers, artisans, warriors, etc. Wholes are commonly understood to be comprised of functionally differentiated parts. For example, an arm has a different function than a heart, but both come together for the whole of the body. Cities are no different.
The rich and the poor are the only two social groups that are mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both a laborer warrior, a rich craftsman, or a farmer judge. But, it is not possible to be rich and poor. It is relatively easy and common for these parts to fall into conflict because they are so clearly distinct.
The greek word politiae is used for both mixed constitution (like I've written above) and middle constitution. This creates some confusion. However, one thing is clear: a strong middle class is among the best things for a society.
Aristotle with Sunglasses
