Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences

The Opinion Ascribed to Aristotle that the State Is an Original Phenomenon Given Simultaneously with the Existence of Man

We have already (p. 149 ff.) demonstrated that the opinion that the state was an original phenomenon, given simultaneously with the existence of man, is untenable and even absurd. Such nonsense was of course completely foreign to Aristotle, no matter how often he has been called the creator of this theory. But to clarify the interesting question of the great philosopher’s conception of the origin of the state, we will first cite the pertinent passages from his writings, since some of them have given at least superficial cause for misunderstanding.

Aristotle (Polit., I, 1) expresses himself as follows on the nature and origin of the state: “One cannot better ascertain the nature of a thing than if one sees it come into existence before one’s eyes. Let us adopt this method therefore in respect to our subject (the determination of the nature of the state!). For this purpose we must first bring those two humans together who are absolutely indispensable to each other, namely man and wife. For their destiny is the propagation of their race. Their coming together, however, is not a work of their intention and of reason, but of instinct.. .. The second of the simplest unions is that between master and servant, between the one giving orders and the one who obeys…. This union also is natural…. From these two unions, the marital and that of master and servant, there develops first a home, a family…. The natural origin of a locality, however, is to be derived from the fact that the first family sent colonists forth from its bosom…. Thus from families there arose cities and tribes, and in the family the monarchical form of government existed. The oldest man of a family was of course the head of it. This method of rule then spread easily to the families which developed from the first and settled down beside it in separate homes. The almost complete and self-sufficient society resulting from the union of several localities is a state, or a community of citizens…. Now if those simple unions of homes and locality are natural, then the community of citizens is also something natural…. From this it is evident that the society of citizens, the state in its first and simple form, is to be accounted one of the works of nature, and man is a creature naturally destined and adapted to lead the life of a citizen (a ζ ον πολιτικóν)”

In the preceding (for the purpose of explaining the nature of the state) Aristotle describes the process by which the state develops from individuals or families. He shows that this process is by no means the result of men’s intention directed toward forming a state, but is a result of their natural instincts. He shows that the process is a natural one and the state itself is thus a natural product in the above sense. He then continues as follows:

“Although the family consists of individual people and the state of several families, still one can in a certain sense say that the state or the community is the first and original thing and that the family and the individual are only beings limited by this (dependent upon it). For the whole is necessarily the basis for the parts and must therefore be considered as the more independent and more original. As soon as the whole body dies the hand and foot are also dead. At least, they exist only in external form and in name, just as a form made of stone is called a hand.… If, therefore, man cannot exist without civilian society and is not self-sufficient when separated from it, his relationship to society is no different from that of any part to the whole. But the whole is the independent and original entity, the part the limited and derivative. Thus the state also is the first entity, the individual last.”

The frequently misunderstood meaning of the above Aristotelian description of the nature and origin of the state, which in part seems contradictory, is thus the following: The state is an organism in which each part is limited by the whole. (Civilized) man is inconceivable without the state. Therefore the state, in respect to civilized humans, is the more original, and the civilized human is the later, the limited entity. However, Aristotle by no means asserts that uncivilized man also cannot be conceived of without the state and that therefore the appearance of the state is as old as that of man in general. On the contrary, he states (Pol., I, 1 toward the end): “Among the Cyclops, as Homer describes them, the families lived separated from each other. This manner of living was general in older times,” and he even, as we saw above, describes in detail the process by which states developed from families (the essential difference of these from states he expressly emphasizes: Pol., I, 1 at the beginning). He needlessly declares quite expressly (Nic. Eth., V, 14) that man is by nature even more of a creation intended for family ties than for state union, since the family is older and more necessary than the state.

Aristotle even acknowledges the possibility that civilized man might live “by chance circumstances outside the boundaries of civilian society” (Polit., I, 2). Only of those people who “by virtue of their nature” live beyond society, in whom, therefore, the natural instinct for associating with others is not present, does he say in true Greek fashion that they must be either more or less than humans. He by no means denies the possibility of existence to the uncivilized human who has this instinct, but has not yet reached the point of forming a state. The often quoted Aristotelian “νθρωποѕ ζ ον πολιτικóν” thus does not mean that man has always lived in a state and that the latter is as old as man himself. It means only that the instincts inherent in man impel him toward associating with others and toward forming a state and that man in the “Greek” sense, civilized man, cannot be older than the state. And this view—if a single passage taken out of context is not exclusively taken into consideration—corresponds to the words of the great philosopher. Not only that, it corresponds to the dictates of common sense, which tell us that a complicated whole cannot be just as old as the elements to which it necessarily owes its existence.1

________________

2 I have translated the author’s translation, for it is more important to show what he thought Aristotle said than to find possible errors in his translation or interpretation. F.J.N.

• 1q I have translated the author’s translation, for it is more important to show what he thought Aristotle said than to find possible errors in his translation or interpretation. F.J.N.
• 2Aristotle even acknowledges the possibility that civilized man might live “by chance circumstances outside the boundaries of civilian society” (Polit., I, 2). Only of those people who “by virtue of their nature” live beyond society, in whom, therefore, the natural instinct for associating with others is not present, does he say in true Greek fashion that they must be either more or less than humans. He by no means denies the possibility of existence to the uncivilized human who has this instinct, but has not yet reached the point of forming a state. The often quoted Aristotelian “νθρωποѕ ζ ον πολιτικóν” thus does not mean that man has always lived in a state and that the latter is as old as man himself. It means only that the instincts inherent in man impel him toward associating with others and toward forming a state and that man in the “Greek” sense, civilized man, cannot be older than the state. And this view—if a single passage taken out of context is not exclusively taken into consideration—corresponds to the words of the great philosopher. Not only that, it corresponds to the dictates of common sense, which tell us that a complicated whole cannot be just as old as the elements to which it necessarily owes its existence.q