In ‘Politics’, Aristotle makes a clear statement: “it is a mistake to believe that the statesman is the same as. the manager of the household.”^[1] This idea goes beyond a simple comparison; it points out key differences between the nature of individuals or households and that of the city. In this essay, I’ll examine and explain two of Aristotle’s arguments on why the individual or household and the city are different by nature.

The first argument is a phylogenetic argument, which states that human associations, or communities, first developed through a “conjugal union”^[2] of a male and a female to form a household, which then associated with more households to form a village, and eventually a number of villages joined together to form a city (or polis), which is the “final and perfect association”^[3] that has achieved the “height of full self-sufficiency.”^[4]The phylogenetic argument shows how a human association evolves from an individual to a city. However, if one only considers this argument, then one might think that the two only differ “according to the number”^[5] and that the city is simply an extension of the individual and the family.

Aristotle argues that the phylogenetic argument alone “cannot be accepted as correct,”^[6] and provides a second argument, a teleological argument, which states that “the city is prior in the order of nature to the family and the individual”^[7], even though it developed later in the process of human society. According to Aristotle, the reason why the city takes precedence over the family and the individual in the natural order of things is that “the whole is necessarily prior to the part.”^[8]

Aristotle’s teleological argument can be explained in the following way:

Firstly, Aristotle defines the nature of things as “what each thing is when its growth is complete.”^[9] Thus for Aristotle, the nature of a thing is not what the thing is but what it is capable of becoming. Its nature is not a static but a developing conception. For example, an acorn naturally grows into an oak tree, and the resulting tree exists by nature and not by craft. Likewise, in Politics the nature of a state can only be discovered by observation of its development and tendencies. Using this definition, Aristotle makes two assertions about human nature. In the first assertion, he argues that humans are naturally communal animals. In the second, he argues that “in a greater degree than bees or other gregarious animals,”^[10]  human beings are political animals by nature.

Aristotle argues that humans are communal animals because they have an innate desire to live a social life, even when they do not require mutual support. Additionally, he argues that humans are political animals, not only because of their natural inclination to form partnerships with others but also because of their unique capacity for reason speech. This capacity allows humans to communicate and deliberate about what is “what is advantageous and what is the reverse”^[11] to each other, leading to the development and communication of moral concepts such as justice, goodness, and evil. This, in turn, leads to the formation of associations that are absent in other animals. For Aristotle, the “most sovereign and inclusive”^[12] form of such an association is the city or political association. Since the capacity for reason and speech eventually leads to the pursuit of the city, Aristotle believes that humans are political animals by nature.

Secondly, Aristotle argues that, according to his definition of nature, all associations, including individuals, families, villages, and cities, exist by nature. However, it is crucial to distinguish between the nature of the family/village and that of the city, as they possess different ends. The city differs from the other, more primitive and pre-political associations because it serves as the “consummation” of earlier associations, achieving full self-sufficiency, whereas the family and village exist by nature “for the satisfaction of daily recurrent need.”^[13] Aristotle claims that for any city, “it must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness”^[14]. Thus, the distinction between the family and the city lies in the fact that while the purpose of the family is “merely to sustain life”, the purpose of the city is to enable citizens to “live a good life.” ^[15] In other words, while the end of the family corresponds to achieving the communal aspect of human nature, the end of the city corresponds to achieving both the communal and political aspects. Thus, one can say that the city is prior to the individual and family by order of nature because the city is aiming at achieving a higher moral end.

Aristotle asserts that the city, as the consummation of all associations, “includes all the rest,” “pursues this aim the most,” and is “directed to the most good.”^[16] Consequently, it is reasonable for him to claim that the city represents the whole, while other associations only represent parts of the ideal function of the city. The city achieves its end because it is composed of equal and free citizens, with political leadership exercised by the citizens themselves in rotation. The city provides opportunities for individuals to participate in politics and develop their moral character. Only within the city can individuals fully utilize their political nature, through activities such as deliberation and decision-making, which enable their moral character to be fully realized through rational communication.

Overall, Aristotle believed that humans are naturally social and political animals, distinguishing them from other creatures. However, individuals must reside in a city in order to develop and realize their natural capacities. Without the city, an individual is no more than a beast^[17], since they are not self-sufficient. This is similar to how a hand loses its ‘nature’ as a hand when the body is destroyed. Therefore, it can be argued that the city takes priority in the natural order over the family and the individual.

Works Cited

Cahn, S. M. (2015). Political philosophy : the essential texts . New York: Oxford University Press.

1. Pol. 1252a1-7 ↑
2. Pol. 1252b2-17 ↑
3. Pol. 1252b27 ↑
4. Pol. 1252b27 ↑
5. Pol. 1252a7-18 ↑
6. Pol. 1252a7-18 ↑
7. Pol. 1253b18 ↑
8. Pol. 1253b18 ↑
9. Pol. 1252b27 ↑
10. Pol. 1253a7-18 ↑
11. Pol. 1253a7-18 ↑
12. Pol. 1252a1-7 ↑
13. Pol. 1252b17-27 ↑
14. Pol 1280b6 ↑
15. Pol. 1252b29-30 ↑
16. Pol. 1252a1-7 ↑
17. Pol. 1253a25 ↑