Collen Anne S.

Pagaduan
Book Review

3rd year BA in Political Science

PSc21Readings in Political Theories

Before reading the actual treatise, ones mind is often clouded with preconceived notions
and biases. For example, some professors/instructors deem the material as outdated; others
outright say that it is boring and a waste of time. So much so, that it actually makes the task
seem daunting. However, once the reader has finished the book, there will be no doubt that
he/she will realize that Aristotles Politics is a critical foundation in the intellectual repertoire of
a political science student.
Aristotle has a number of arguments in Politics that are noteworthy, like those that have
refuted arguments of his contemporaries (Socrates in Platos The Republic), and some that are
unacceptable in todays world. To list them all would require more than a two page book review,
but I shall try my best.
Firstly, as a political science student, it is important to familiarize ones self with
Aristotles famous claim: that man, by nature, is a political animal. Humans are the only animals
nature has given the capacity for logos, which, depending on your reference, would be translated
to speech or reason. It is with this naturally occurring speech/reason that man judges right from
wrong, just from unjust. This judgment leads him to the road of self-sufficiency: forming
families, villages, and a state for the purpose of living well.
Another noteworthy argument is Aristotles refutation of Socrates propositions-that the
greater the unity in the state, the better, and that women and children should be held in common.
Aristotle argued that the nature of the state is to be a plurality. Becoming united, it ceases to be a
state and becomes a family, and from a family becomes an individual. However, what is more
self-sufficing? An individual or a family? An individual or a state? If self-sufficiency is indeed
the end of the state, greater unity can only cause its destruction. Aristotle argued that a state is
composed of different kinds of men that depend on one another. They produce and provide each
others wants; coming together .This interdependence preserves cities.
Aristotles claim has some implications in todays society. Some people argue that it is
better for everyone to go to college and get white-collar jobs. They seem to think that if everyone
had white-collar jobs, poverty in the Philippines would disappear overnight because of the
salaries associated with these jobs. However, if all Filipinos were lawyers, who will produce the
basic necessities like rice? Who will raise livestock? Who will build houses and buildings? Who
will do all the manual labor? The lawyers might just sue each other into planting rice. Also, their
only clients might be themselves or none at all since they will be able to argue themselves out of
any crime they commit, or at least postpone the hearings. Today, we depend on each other to
produce our needs. Farmers plant rice, construction workers build infrastructure, teachers teach
etc. There is a web of economic and social interdependence that keeps cities/states together.
On women and children being held in common, he foresaw four negative effects. First,
he argued that humans care more for what belongs to them exclusively and care less for what
belongs in common. Because of this women and children will be neglected. Second, since fathers
will not know which child is theirs, even though there may be times when a considerable
likeness will be evident, they will not know who their relatives are. Crimes against family
members are more likely to happen. Third, because of this, there will be a number of significant
conflicts. Fourth and last, the chances for incest have gone considerably up, and families will not
be bonded by natural affection. Aristotles stand on women and children not being held in
common is commendable, however this does not overshadow the fact that some of his arguments
about women make them (us) seem intellectually deprived, and at times handicapped. I shall
discuss this in detail later.
Aristotle discusses the different kinds of constitutions/regimes, their origin, their
destruction and their preservation. Factional conflict is caused by inequality, though inequality
of what kind is often interpreted differently by different kinds of men. In a state, there are the
wealthy few, the middle class, and the poor majority. Democrats believe in numerical equality,
while oligarchs believe in proportional equality. Both kinds leave room for perceived inequality
from both sides, putting them at odds with each other. Factional conflict can change the current
regime to better or worse, or even a different kind of regime altogether. The key to preservation
is moderation. The regime should not be inclined to be a more democratic or oligarchic version

Collen Anne S. Pagaduan

Book Review

3rd year BA in Political Science

PSc21Readings in Political Theories

of itself, or take it to the extreme. In democracies, the wealthy should also be given a share in the
government and not excluded, likewise in oligarchies.
One of the highlights of Politics is book four, when he discussed the three parts that,
when in good condition, renders the constitution in good condition also. First is the deliberative
part that is has authority over public affairs, the second concerns about what offices there should
be, how the officials are chosen and the third decides lawsuits. Upon closer look, these three
parts resemble the three branches of government evident in todays governments. Though the
doctrine of separation of powers is not attributed to Aristotle per se, one cannot help but think
that his influence pervades. What would Aristotle say if he saw todays states and their respective
governments? Would he be pleased that the governments seem to adopt his advice and
suggestions? Would he consider todays states natural? What about our definition of a citizen?
He would probably be aghast at the prospect of women having a share in government.
Going back to Aristotles treatment of women in his work, I am tempted to label him a
phallocentric, patriarchal, and paternalistically conservative philosopher. The operative
word here is tempted. He regards women as inferior to men, but superior to slaves. What makes
them superior to slaves is that they have a deliberative faculty. Despite having deliberative
faculty, women, he says, lack authority. This affects her display of moral virtues, making women
sound naturally impulsive and evil on one hand, mentally challenged on the other. Men, on the
other hand, are always commanded by their deliberative capacity. That is why men should rule
over them. He then claims that husband and wife should relate to each other as in a constitutional
rule, defined as the rule of equals-ruling and being ruled in turn. Werent the women during
Aristotles time under the control of the men-their lives being regulated by the men? Didnt the
men safeguard the interests of the women that they defined themselves (men)? Furthermore, he
criticizes Spartan women and their freedom, attributing the love of money as the consequence of
the aforementioned issues. Maybe it is because of this that he does not mention women having a
share in politics or in positions of authority or being citizens after his own definition. He must
have been wary of other regimes succumbing to the same fate as that of the Spartans.
One wonders if the women in Aristotles life were educated the same way men were. If
the women were educated, as most of them are today, would Aristotle and his deliberative
capacity written ancient women off as inferior to men and lacking authority? We may never
know. Despite Aristotles seemingly sexist remarks about women, it would seem unfair to call
him a phallocentric, patriarchal, paternalistically conservative, sexist philosopher given the
circumstances of his time. It seems as if he was only able to observe uneducated women who
lived their lives confined in the walls of patriarchy. Some of them were slaves.
It is interesting to note, that at Book VII, he deals with what makes a man excellent. An
excellent city-state would have excellent citizens participating in government. Education is key
to making a man excellent. I would have called him all those things mentioned earlier, if he did
not say that women should also be educated for the good of the state in book I, chapter 13. He
also mentions in Book VII that all citizens participate in the constitution, and that all citizens
should be educated. This would also hold true today. If we want our government or our politics
to change for the better, we must take it upon ourselves to get an education. Once educated, the
electorate can truly and freely make informed choices and put their own interest first. Not the
politicians own interest whitewashed and passed off as a comical jingle about being poor and
spending Christmas in the streets. They will know better, because they deserve better. An
educated citizenry would be able to actively participate in policy and decision making. They will
contribute to development of not only economic factors, but also to the socio-cultural and
political. Education will level the playing field of man and woman, regardless of race, religious
beliefs or lack thereof, socio-economic standing, promote a culture of acceptance and toleration.
Education contributes to excellence, self-sufficiency and more.