The Greek polis and the Roman civitas represent some of the most distinctive forms of political and social organization in history. Yet, they are often misunderstood when examined through the lens of the modern state. Modern conceptions of the state—centralized, bureaucratic, and sovereign—emerged from the intellectual revolutions of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Thinkers like Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke reimagined political organization as a rational system of governance designed to maintain order, safeguard rights, and administer territories. This shift marked the state as an abstract and impersonal authority distinct from ancient communities’ organic, participatory systems. Labeling the polis or civitas as early forms of the state distorts their essence and overlooks their fundamental differences.

The modern state is defined by its sovereignty, territoriality, and institutionalization. It operates through impersonal legal frameworks and hierarchies, ensuring governance through the centralized exercise of power. In contrast, the polis was a holistic community where governance was deeply integrated with social customs, religious practices, and communal identity. Participation in the polis was not merely a right but a defining aspect of life, as citizens actively engaged in decision-making and the administration of justice. Similarly, the Roman civitas was built on shared norms, mutual obligations, and a sense of collective responsibility rather than modern states’ hierarchical structures and territorial sovereignty. These differences highlight the need to study these ancient communities on their own terms rather than forcing them into a framework they were never intended to fit.

Understanding the polis and civitas requires a departure from linear narratives of political development that portray them as precursors to the modern state. The participatory ethos and communal integration of these ancient societies starkly contrast with the alienation and abstraction of contemporary political systems. Ancient thinkers like Aristotle and Plato articulated a vision of political life rooted in virtue, justice, and the pursuit of the good life, emphasizing the collective flourishing of the community over the efficiency or control often prioritized by modern states. This perspective offers valuable insights into alternative governance models and challenges modern assumptions about the nature of political organization.

By exploring the unique features of the polis and civitas, this essay seeks to illuminate their distinctiveness and the lessons they hold for contemporary political thought. Far from being primitive or incomplete states, these ancient communities were sophisticated systems that integrated governance, ethics, and culture in ways modern states have often failed to achieve. Recognizing their differences from modern states allows us to appreciate the diversity of human political experience. It opens the door to reimagining governance in ways that prioritize community, participation, and shared responsibility.

The Emergence of the Modern State and Its Philosophical Underpinnings

The modern state emerged as a distinct political construct during the intellectual transformations of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. These periods, marked by a renewed emphasis on reason, individualism, and universal principles, redefined political organization as abstract and systematic. Thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were pivotal in conceptualizing the state through the social contract framework. Hobbes, in Leviathan, argued for the necessity of a centralized authority to escape the brutish chaos of the state of nature. On the other hand, Locke saw the state as a mechanism to safeguard natural rights like life, liberty, and property. Both thinkers envisioned a political entity defined by sovereignty, bureaucracy, and legal-rational governance, a far cry from the communal and participatory ethos of the ancient polis and civitas.

This vision of the state was not just a theoretical construct but a reflection of broader social changes. The rise of centralized monarchies, the decline of feudalism, and the spread of capitalist economies necessitated new forms of political organization. The modern state became an entity capable of exercising impersonal authority over a defined territory, separate from the cultural or personal ties that characterized earlier forms of governance. It marked a shift towards abstraction, where institutions became the locus of power rather than individuals or communities. This framework profoundly contrasts with the polis and civitas, where governance was deeply embedded in the community’s lived experiences and shared values.

Greek Philosophy and the Distinct Nature of the Polis

Greek philosophy provides crucial insights into the polis as a unique form of human association. For Aristotle, the polis was not merely a political unit but an essential part of human existence. In his Politics, Aristotle described humans as zoon politikon—political animals—whose nature is fulfilled through participation in the polis. This community was not an abstract construct but a tangible and necessary framework for achieving the good life. The polis integrated social, ethical, and political dimensions, making it a holistic entity rather than a specialized institution. Its purpose was not efficiency or order, as in the modern state, but the cultivation of virtue and the realization of human potential.

Plato, too, underscored the polis’s ethical and philosophical dimensions. In The Republic, he envisioned an ideal polis governed by philosopher-kings, where the community structure reflected a harmonious order mirroring the human soul. While Plato’s idealism differed from the practical realities of most Greek poleis, his work highlights the polis’s focus on the collective pursuit of justice and the good. This contrasts sharply with the modern state’s emphasis on individual rights, contractual governance, and territorial sovereignty. In the polis, governance was inseparable from the pursuit of communal excellence, whereas the state prioritizes institutional stability and legal codification.

Misrepresenting the Polis and Civitas as States

Mischaracterizing the polis and civitas as states imposes a linear narrative of political development that distorts the diversity of historical forms. This narrative assumes that ancient communities like the polis and civitas were embryonic states, steadily evolving toward the modern paradigm. Such an interpretation fails to recognize that these ancient forms were fundamentally different, rooted in shared customs, face-to-face participation, and a communal sense of identity. The polis was not a proto-state but a distinct mode of human organization that cannot be understood through the lens of sovereignty, bureaucracy, or territoriality.

For example, Athens, often celebrated as the archetype of democracy, exemplified the participatory nature of the polis. Citizens gathered in the ekklesia (assembly) to debate and decide on public matters directly, without the mediation of representatives or institutions. This direct engagement was a political process and a cultural and ethical practice reinforcing communal bonds. Similarly, in Sparta, governance was shared among multiple institutions, including the dual kingship, the gerousia (council of elders), and the apella (assembly). These structures reflected a commitment to balance and collective responsibility rather than the centralized authority characteristic of the modern state.

The Holistic Integration of Life in the Polis

The polis was a holistic entity where political, social, and religious life were inseparably intertwined. Public festivals, religious rituals, and civic duties were all aspects of the same communal existence. For instance, the Panathenaic Festival in Athens celebrated not only the city’s patron deity, Athena, but also the unity and identity of its citizens. Participation in these events was both a religious act and a reaffirmation of one’s role in the polis. This integration contrasts sharply with the compartmentalization of life in the modern state, where political, social, and religious spheres are often strictly separated.

Similarly, legal practices in the polis were deeply embedded in communal norms and traditions. In Athens, the legal system relied on large citizen juries, often numbering in the hundreds, to ensure that decisions reflected the community’s values rather than the dictates of a professional judiciary. This participatory approach to law underscores the polis’s emphasis on collective deliberation and shared responsibility. In contrast, the modern state’s legal systems are administered by specialized institutions that operate independently of direct citizen involvement, reflecting the impersonal nature of modern governance.

The Roman Civitas: A Different Model of Community

Like the polis, the Roman civitas was a communal organization rooted in shared traditions and active participation. Unlike the modern state, which is characterized by territorial sovereignty and centralized institutions, the civitas was defined by the relationships among its members. Roman citizenship was not merely a legal status but a deeply ingrained social and moral identity. Citizens were bound by mutual obligations and shared values, with political authority emerging from the community’s collective will rather than from a separate ruling apparatus.

The civitas was also notable for its emphasis on legal and cultural integration. As Rome expanded, it incorporated conquered peoples into its political framework, granting them citizenship and allowing them to participate in the res publica. This inclusive approach reflects the communal and participatory ethos of the civitas, which prioritized shared identity and mutual obligation over territorial control or bureaucratic administration. The modern state, by contrast, often defines citizenship in terms of legal rights and territorial residence, emphasizing the individual’s relationship with the state rather than their integration into a communal whole.

Lessons for Modern Political Thought

The polis and civitas offer valuable lessons for contemporary political theory. Their emphasis on active participation, communal responsibility, and integrating public and private life challenges the atomization and bureaucratization of modern politics. In the polis, citizenship was not a passive status but an active practice, requiring individuals to engage directly in the community’s life. This model contrasts with the modern state, where political participation is often limited to voting or other symbolic acts mediated by complex institutional structures.

For instance, contemporary movements advocating for participatory democracy or community-based governance draw inspiration from the ancient polis. These movements seek to reclaim the sense of agency and collective responsibility that characterized ancient communities. Similarly, debates about the role of tradition and shared values in shaping public life can benefit from a deeper understanding of the civitas, where law and governance are grounded in communal consensus rather than abstract principles.

The Enduring Relevance of the Polis and Civitas

Understanding the polis and civitas on their own terms allows us to appreciate the diversity of political organization in human history. These forms were not precursors to the modern state but distinct entities with their own logic and purpose. By studying them, we can expand our understanding of what is possible in political life, moving beyond the constraints of modern assumptions. The participatory ethos of the polis and the communal integration of the civitas offer alternative models of governance that prioritize community, responsibility, and active engagement.

In conclusion, the ancient polis and Roman civitas were not states in the modern sense but unique forms of communal organization rooted in shared customs, traditions, and participation. To label them as states imposes anachronistic assumptions that obscure their distinctiveness and the lessons they offer for contemporary political thought. Recognizing the uniqueness of these ancient forms enriches our understanding of history and provides valuable insights into the possibilities of human association and governance.

Conclusion

The Greek polis and Roman civitas stand as unique historical examples of communal organization that defy the modern concept of the state. These ancient communities were deeply rooted in shared customs, traditions, and active participation, distinguishing them from the impersonal and bureaucratic systems that characterize modern states. By misrepresenting them as early forms of the state, we risk distorting their essence and losing sight of the alternative models of governance they represent. Understanding the polis and civitas on their own terms allows us to better appreciate their distinctiveness and contributions to political thought.

At the heart of the polis and civitas was a commitment to collective responsibility and the active engagement of citizens in public life. In these societies, governance was an extension of communal identity rather than a separate, centralized authority. The participatory ethos of the polis, where citizens deliberated directly on matters of governance, and the civitas, with its emphasis on shared obligations and legal traditions, reflect a fundamentally different understanding of political life. These systems prioritized the cultivation of virtue, justice, and mutual obligation over the efficiency or control emphasized by the modern state.

The lessons of the polis and civitas resonate in contemporary debates about political alienation, community, and civic engagement. In an era where politics often feels distant and impersonal, the participatory practices and communal bonds of these ancient systems provide a counterpoint to the atomization and bureaucracy of modern governance. By revisiting these ancient models, we can explore alternative approaches to political organization that emphasize active participation, shared responsibility, and integrating public and private life.

Ultimately, the polis and civitas challenge us to think more broadly about the possibilities of human political association. They remind us that governance need not be confined to the hierarchical, sovereign frameworks of the modern state. Instead, these ancient forms offer a vision of politics as a deeply integrated and participatory endeavor rooted in the collective flourishing of communities. By understanding the polis and civitas not as precursors to the state but as distinct and sophisticated systems in their own right, we enrich our understanding of political history and open the door to imagining new possibilities for the future.

The post Revisiting Ancient Communities: Understanding the Polis and Civitas Beyond the Modern State appeared first on The Miskatonian.

The Germanic and Norse cultures, as depicted in their sagas and epic poetry, held honor and martial prowess in the highest regard. In these societies, the warrior ethos was central, emphasizing bravery in battle, loyalty to one’s chieftain, and the preservation of personal reputation. Honor was not merely a personal trait but a societal expectation that could dictate one’s status and actions. Personal and familial vengeance was crucial for maintaining honor, often leading to cycles of violence and retribution. This honor-centric perspective created a culture where personal achievements in battle and protecting one’s reputation were paramount.

A fundamental aspect of Germanic and Norse worldviews believed in fate, or “wyrd.” This belief held that the gods had predetermined human roles, reinforcing a worldview where personal courage and marital status were highly esteemed. This fatalistic outlook shaped their ethical framework, valorizing individual bravery and honor as essential virtues.

In Ancient Greece, the concept of arete, or virtue, was central to societal values, particularly among the aristocracy. Arete encompassed qualities such as martial prowess, wisdom, and skill, reflecting a broad spectrum of excellence. The Homeric epics, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, underscore the importance of honor and heroic deeds. Greek heroes were often depicted as favored by the gods, and their heroic exploits were celebrated as models of virtue.

Greek ethical thought extended beyond individual heroism to emphasize civic duty and excellence within the polis. Values such as civic responsibility, rhetorical skills, and philosophical wisdom were significant. Influential philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle stressed the importance of virtue in personal life and public affairs, advocating for a broader conception of ethical behavior. While influenced by Greek notions of virtue, Roman ethics developed distinct concepts such as virtus and gravitas. Virtus included qualities like courage and character, while gravitas denoted seriousness and dignity. Roman culture highly valued military service and personal honor, reflecting these values in societal and legal norms.

The evolution of Roman legal principles marked a significant development in ethical standards. Roman law integrated personal honor with civic responsibilities, creating a complex understanding of ethical behavior that balanced individual virtues with legal and moral duties. This evolution represented a shift towards a more organized and systematic approach to ethics.

Christianity’s introduction to these societies brought a new ethical framework centered on the doctrine of agape. This principle emphasized unconditional, self-sacrificial love for all people, including one’s enemies. This represented a radical departure from the honor-based codes of earlier pagan traditions, prioritizing personal and familial reputation over compassion. The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, particularly in passages such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), highlighted values of love, forgiveness, and mercy.

The doctrine of agape expanded ethical concern beyond immediate kinship groups to encompass all humanity, advocating for a universal sense of brotherhood and care. This shift significantly departed from the exclusive, honor-centric values of earlier pagan traditions, focusing instead on compassion and communal support.

Christian teachings also challenged the prevailing norms of retribution and personal vengeance. The emphasis on forgiveness and the principle of turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) sought to replace cycles of violence with reconciliation and peace. This approach signaled a significant shift in societal values, moving away from focusing on personal honor and revenge towards a new conflict resolution model based on forgiveness and understanding. The Christian focus on charity—love in action—led to the establishment of various social institutions, including hospitals, orphanages, and schools. These institutions reflected a commitment to caring for the less fortunate and departed from the more individualistic and honor-centric values of earlier pagan traditions. This focus on social justice and communal care represented a new approach to societal responsibility.

As Christianity spread throughout Europe, its ethical teachings began integrating with pagan practices. This gradual and often uneven integration reflected the complex interactions between Christian and pagan values. Over time, Christian ethics influenced legal codes, social norms, and even martial traditions. One notable example of this integration is the chivalric code of medieval knighthood, which incorporated Christian virtues such as humility and mercy. This code reflected the blending of Christian values with existing martial traditions, illustrating the impact of Christian ethics on societal norms. The chivalric tradition, with its Christian-infused ideals, significantly evolved from earlier pagan warrior codes. The emphasis on mercy, compassion, and the protection of the weak reflected the Christian influence on martial practices. This integration of Christian ethics into the chivalric code marked a transformation in societal values, shaping the development of Western civilization and its moral frameworks.

On this example of the chivalric tradition, C. S. Lewis, in his exploration of Christian ethics, elucidates how the doctrine of agape made the development of the chivalric knight tradition possible. Lewis argues that Christian virtues of humility, mercy, and self-sacrifice were instrumental in shaping the chivalric code, which became a defining feature of medieval knighthood. The chivalric code, which integrated Christian ideals into martial practices, emphasized bravery in battle and qualities such as honor, loyalty, and service to others. This synthesis of Christian and martial values created a new ethical framework that influenced Western thought.

Despite the spread of Christianity, some pagan traditions persisted alongside Christian teachings. In regions such as Scandinavia and Germany, pagan practices often adapted to fit the new Christian context. This blending of old and new values resulted in a gradual but uneven transition, highlighting the complexity of cultural and ethical transformation. The transition from pagan to Christian ethical codes was not immediate. The gradual integration of Christian teachings into existing pagan practices reflects the complex cultural and ethical transformation process that occurred over time. This process involved resistance and adaptation, illustrating the dynamic interactions between different value systems.

The impact of Christianity on personal behavior was profound. The shift from honor and vengeance to compassion and forgiveness marked a significant change in individual ethics. This transformation influenced personal conduct, leading to new ways of understanding and practicing ethical behavior. Christianity’s influence on social organization was also significant. The establishment of charitable institutions and a focus on communal care reflected a new approach to social responsibility and governance. This departed from the individualistic and honor-based values of earlier pagan traditions. Religious institutions played a crucial role in the dissemination of Christian ethics. The Church’s involvement in social welfare, education, and legal reform reflected the broader impact of Christian teachings on societal norms and values. These institutions helped integrate Christian ethics into various social and public life aspects.

The influence of Christianity on legal systems was profound. Incorporating Christian principles into legal codes led to a greater emphasis on mercy, justice, and the welfare of all members of society. This represented a shift from the honor-based legal traditions of the past, reflecting a more comprehensive approach to ethical and legal issues.

The spread of Christianity also contributed to the evolution of ethical philosophy. Christian teachings influenced philosophical discussions on ethics, morality, and the nature of virtue, leading to new understandings of moral behavior and social responsibility. Philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas played a crucial role in integrating Christian teachings with philosophical thought, shaping the development of Western ethical philosophy. The impact of Christianity extended to artistic and cultural expressions. Art, literature, and music from the medieval period often reflected Christian values of compassion, humility, and community. This cultural shift demonstrated the broader influence of Christian ethics on societal values and creative expressions.

Missionary work was instrumental in spreading Christian ethics to new regions. Missionaries not only converted individuals but also introduced new social and ethical norms, contributing to the broader transformation of societal values. Their efforts played a crucial role in disseminating and adapting Christian teachings. Thus, the interaction between Christian teachings and existing cultural practices resulted in a dynamic change process. In some cases, Christian values were adapted to fit local traditions, synthesizing old and new ethical norms. This blending of values highlights the complexity of cultural and ethical transformation.

The challenges of integrating Christian ethics into existing cultural contexts were significant. Resistance to new values and the persistence of old traditions created a complex and often contentious process of cultural transformation. These challenges reflect the difficulties inherent in reconciling different value systems. Yet, the long-term impact of Christianity on European society was profound. The transition from honor-based, martial ethics to a focus on compassion and community shaped the development of Western civilization and its values. This transformation marked a significant evolution in ethical and social norms.

The legacy of Christian ethics continues to influence contemporary societal values. Principles of agape, charity, and social justice remain central to discussions on morality and ethics, reflecting the enduring impact of Christianity on ethical thought. This legacy underscores the ongoing relevance of Christian teachings in shaping modern values and practices. Therefore, comparing the effects of Christianity on different cultures reveals diverse responses to Christian ethics. Christian teachings’ varying adaptations and integrations highlight the complexity of cultural and ethical transformation. These differences demonstrate how Christianity influenced and was influenced by various cultural contexts. Looking to the future, the influence of Christian ethics is likely to continue evolving. As societies address new ethical challenges, agape and social justice principles will remain relevant in shaping ethical and social norms. The ongoing relevance of these principles reflects the enduring impact of Christianity on moral thought and practice.

In conclusion, the doctrine of agape introduced by Christianity marked a profound departure from the honor-based, martial ethics of the Germanic, Norse, Greek, and Roman cultures. Christianity reshaped personal behavior and social organization by emphasizing selfless love, forgiveness, and communal care. This transformation represents a significant evolution in ethical values, highlighting the power of religious doctrines to influence and redefine societal norms. The shift from pagan to Christian ethical codes underscores the transformative impact of Christianity on the values that guide human behavior and social organization.

The post Christianity’s Transformation of Ethical Codes: From Pagan Warrior Ethos to Christian Agape appeared first on The Miskatonian.

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 polis—which was the form of the political community at the time of the Ancient Greeks—was 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. Thus given 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). The nature of the polis needs to be understood as an aggregation of discrete parts whose only real unity arises out of 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 of 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 ruler’s rule. As to the characteristic of the number of rulers (1), he presents us with a very common-sense division between the one, the few, or the many. As to the characteristic of the justice of the ruler’s 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 mastery—which 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:

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 word 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 about 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 lovers—Aristotle 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 a polity or something like a constitutional rule or a 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 if the ruling rich or wealthy were many (and the largest and most numerous part—even the majority) and not few its rule would remain oligarchic rather 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 suggests 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 to—one is tyranny and the other the politeia called politeia.   Whereas the claim of tyranny is obvious—might makes right—the claim of the politeia named politeia is not.  And given the very strangeness in its very name—one would expect some clarification would be given—but in Book 3 of the Politics, none is given.  So, at the end we have five claims—four explicitly presented in the text, one only implied and they are the following:

In Politics the claim of justice makes by each politeia seems to be what truly defines it.  Yet where we turn to Politics we not only return to the original six-fold typology of politeia of Politics but we once again see Aristotle 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 Aristotle’s 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 politeia—oligarchy, 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 what the politeia is and what is it composed of, and then he fleshes out the various parts of multitudes (the many) and notables (the few) that exist within and forms 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 politeia—either tyranny or the politeia called politeia—but 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 gives a blurred account of both aristocracy (which he said he had already discussed) and the politeia called politeia—which 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 Aristotle’s Politics and remain an endless source of controversy over what exactly he is 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 distinguishes his teaching from that of Plato and Xenophon, as well as Thucydides and Herodotus. In fact, later writers like Plutarch and Polybius—Greeks who are writing and living at the time after Rome has conquered Greece and ruled over it—speak of the politeia as more akin to Plato than to Aristotle, especially Aristotle’s account of Politics book 4, 5, and 6.  The fact that so little is mentioned of Aristotle’s 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 Aristotle’s Politics.

            Aristotle’s account of the politeia also fundamentally differs from that of Plato’s and Polybius’s accounts by his underscoring that change of politeia will occur between politeia but also within variations as well.  Both Plato and Polybius have a 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 reasons such change of a politeia would be called a revolution.  Hence the power of this cyclical vision of political change.  But Aristotle’s 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 necessarily repeat in the way Plato presented it.

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 is not only as dynamic as many contemporary models of political systems/regimes, but we also find in today’s social scientific study of politics, what we call political science.  Yet Aristotle’s treatment of politeia differs from most if not all contemporary models found in today’s 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.

The post Aristotle on the politeia and its role in his political science. appeared first on The Miskatonian.