Classical Sociological Theory. Sinisa Malesevic
ends and objects. His aim in the Nicomachean Ethics is not to teach for the sake of knowing, which is the aim of the theoretical sciences, but a practical aim, so that men can lead good, happy, lives. It is to tell people how to act in the world, akin to providing a skill as in artistic production. The methodology and approach used in the practical arts must be also commensurate with the subject matter being dealt with. Here scientific precision and exact knowledge are, for Aristotle, impossible since ‘noble and just actions’ exhibit ‘much variety and fluctuation’ so that one can only ‘speak about things which “are only for the most part true” that is roughly and in outline’ (Aristotle, 2014: 1094b).
It was noted earlier how the principle of self-sufficiency was a central value in Greece. Drawing on his principle of hierarchy, Aristotle argues that the highest good must be wanted for itself, and not as a means to something else; it must be self-sufficient, and lack nothing. Although all actions aim at some purpose or good, some goods or ends are means for seeking higher goods or ends, of which one is the final chief good, ‘that for whose sake of everything else is done’ (Aristotle, 2014: 1097b).
It is, he argues, generally agreed by both ‘the general run of men and people of superior refinement’, including Plato, that the ultimate goal of all our actions is happiness so that people identify ‘living well and faring well with being happy’ (Aristotle, 2014: 1095a19). In Greek the term eudaimonia has a much broader objective connotation than the modern subjective notion of happiness, and can also be translated as flourishing, blessedness, living well (eu zên) or fulfilment, which imply behaving well and faring well in terms of physical, material and psychological well-being. Happiness is the supreme good because it is chosen for its own sake and not for the sake of something else, and all other goods are chosen to achieve it. It is in other words a first principle, for it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else.
Humans need to fulfil their ‘rational element’ to its maximum ‘since man is born for citizenship, he is a politikon zoon (political animal)’ (Aristotle, 2014: 1097b). Here Aristotle introduces a crucial sociological concept: of humans as fundamentally social and political beings. The terms ‘born for citizenship’ can also be translated as ‘is a political animal’ and the term ‘political’ also encapsulates what in modern societies we would refer to as ‘social’. Humans also possess the capacity for language, which allows them to communicate and reflect on what is just and unjust.
The importance of happiness and virtue does not reside in the state of mind of the individual, but in his or her activity or practice, since virtue in the mind can produce no ‘good result’; it is akin to a man being asleep or inactive. It is only by doing just acts that someone can become just, and temperate acts become temperate. For Aristotle the life of those who lead a virtuous life will also be a pleasant life since pleasure is a state of the soul.
Aristotle, while acknowledging happiness as ‘ a virtuous activity of soul, of a certain kind’ (2014: 1099b), does, however, presuppose the existence of a certain amount of sufficient resources which he refers to as ‘proper equipment’ or ‘external goods’ – instruments for carrying out noble actions. These include material goods and wealth, power and friendship. Moreover, the absence of certain things or qualities diminishes one’s happiness; this includes good birth, goodly children and beauty. Happiness, though it requires a degree of ‘study and care’, also requires an element of chance and good fortune in life.
According to Aristotle, individuals need to act ‘in accordance with correct reason’, more specifically, than they do so by choosing to act in accordance with a mean, rather than incorrect or inappropriate feelings. The ‘mean’ refers to a rule or principle of choosing actions appropriately in different situations based on a criterion that avoids two opposite extremes: one of deficiency and the other of excess. For example, courage constitutes the virtuous mean between cowardice and rashness. This emotionally laden social skill of acting according to the mean, that is the ability to do the right or the appropriate thing in each different circumstance, is generally acquired through habit, upbringing and practice rather than learned through explicit teaching. Having devoted a large part of the book to discussing the importance of moral virtues and the importance of practical wisdom in realising these, Aristotle concludes, perhaps as a result of countervailing political reasons, by arguing that the happiest life is not one centred on an ethical life of practice and activity, as found in democracy, but on a life devoted to contemplation and study (theorie). It is in fact the life of a philosopher.
The Politics
Aristotle begins The Politics by discussing the state as the highest form of association, aiming at the highest of all goods. He offers a hypothetical theory of state formation rooted in nature and teleological explanation, as the final and highest form of association that is self-sufficient. The private counterpart to the public association of citizens – the polis – that aims at securing the good life, is the household – oikos – which meets daily needs, and a collection of which constitutes a village. In the household, the man as master naturally dominates the women as he does the slave and children. This contrasts with the domination in the political sphere, which is by free individuals or citizens over one another both through their acquiescence and through just law (Frisby and Sayer, 1986: 15).
There is, for Aristotle, a natural and unnatural way of acquiring a good or object. Though they share with animals the acquisition of goods from their surrounding environment, humans also possess different ways of living through their natural productive labour: as nomads who move with their domesticated animals; as hunters and pirates; and by agriculture. Some peoples combine all three types of existence. Just as these modes of acquisition are given by nature, so too is the food chain. This includes acquiring animals, but also other peoples; war itself is a result of nature.
There is, however, a second method of acquiring goods. In what was to become central to Marx’s argument in his distinction between use-value and exchange-value in Capital, Aristotle argues that pieces of property have a double use, one of which is the proper use, the other for exchange. For example, a shoe can be put on a foot, its proper use, or become an object of exchange, an improper use. The latter emerges as a result of the mutual needs of many individual households having too much of one good and not enough of the other. Exchange is not contrary to nature since it aims to re-establish nature’s own equilibrium of self-sufficiency. It is on this basis that money-making arose. Trade was initially a simple affair but became more complex as people became aware of where the greatest profits could be made from exchanges. However, when trade goes beyond the self-sufficiency required by a community it becomes unnatural since the unlimited acquisition of wealth becomes an end in itself for some people. For Aristotle the constitution is the citizen-body and constitutions can be distinguished according to the numbers of those who rule. Hence in democracies the masses are sovereign while in oligarchies it is only the few. There are three correct constitutions which can be differentiated in terms of numbers and that aim at the common good – monarchy (kingship), aristocracy and ‘polity’. In the first one man has virtue; in the second, the best few rule; in the last, some, but not all rule since it is difficult for a large number to gain virtue except in military terms. Corresponding to these there exist three deviant constitutions that aim at the private advantage of the rulers – tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. These constitutions are ranked with hereditary monarchy being the best, aristocracy next, followed by polity, democracy, oligarchy, with tyranny rooted at the bottom. However, Aristotle then modifies this view of constitutions by arguing that we in fact need to look at economic factors for distinguishing constitutions rather than simply numerical criteria: ‘what really differentiates oligarchy and democracy is wealth or the lack of it. It inevitably follows that where men rule because of the possession of wealth, whether their number be large or small, that is oligarchy, and when the poor rule, that is democracy’ (Aristotle, 1998: 1279b26).
Criticisms
Aristotle’s work has been criticised in a number of respects. His analysis of causal and functional explanation has been seen as especially problematical. It is not clear why he assumes animate and inanimate objects, including humans, only have one