BOOK III Chapter 1 The Polis (The City)

Chapter 1

1. Introduction to the Study of the Regime (1274b–1275a)

• Purpose of Investigation: Aristotle begins by stressing the importance of understanding what the regime (politeia) is, as this is central to political inquiry.
  • The regime is the arrangement of people who inhabit a city and governs their political life.
  • To understand regimes, Aristotle notes that it is first necessary to understand what the city (polis) itself is.
• Debates about the City’s Actions: There are disputes about whether political actions should be attributed to the city itself or to specific groups, such as an oligarchy or a tyrant.
  • The regime and its functioning hinge on the city, and understanding the city provides the foundation for understanding the regime.
• Focus on the City: The regime is a certain arrangement of those who live within the city, so it is crucial to investigate the composition and structure of the city to comprehend the regime fully.

2. The City as a Composite Entity (1275a)

• Composite Nature of the City: Like other composite wholes, the city is made up of multiple parts, particularly its citizens.
• Definition of a Citizen: Since the city is fundamentally a collection of citizens, Aristotle turns to the key question: Who is a citizen?
  • Determining the nature of citizenship is essential, as the regime is an arrangement of citizens who participate in political life.
  • The question of what constitutes a citizen leads to debates, as different regimes (e.g., democracies, oligarchies) define citizenship differently.

3. Disputes about Citizenship (1275a)

• Different Conceptions of Citizenship: Aristotle acknowledges that there is disagreement about who qualifies as a citizen.
  • Varied Definitions: In a democracy, a person might be considered a citizen who would not be regarded as such in an oligarchy.
  • Honorary Citizenship: Aristotle dismisses the idea that honorary citizens, who do not actively participate in political life, are true citizens.
  • Citizenship and Residence: Simply residing in a city does not make one a citizen; aliens and slaves also live in the city but are not citizens.

4. Participation in Justice and Citizenship (1275a)

• Participation in Justice: Sharing in legal matters (lawsuits and adjudication) does not necessarily make one a citizen.
  • Contractual Justice: Individuals, even aliens, can be involved in the legal system through contractual agreements, but this does not confer full citizenship. In many cases, aliens must seek a patron to represent them, further highlighting their incomplete participation in the city.
• Children and the Elderly:
  • Children and elderly citizens, though technically citizens, do not have full political rights. They are considered incomplete citizens because they cannot fully participate in the decision-making processes.
  • The citizen Aristotle seeks to define is a fully active citizen, one without any defects or restrictions that limit their political role.

5. The Citizen as a Participant in Office (1275a–1275b)

• Core Definition of a Citizen: Aristotle defines the citizen in an unqualified sense as one who participates in decision-making and office within the city.
  • Types of Offices: There are two main types of offices in the city:
    • Limited-Time Offices: These are offices that citizens can hold for a limited period, with restrictions on holding the same office multiple times or requiring a waiting period before being reappointed.
    • Indefinite Offices: Some offices, such as juror or assemblyman, are indefinite and not subject to term limits. These roles provide continuous political participation and decision-making.
• Ruling and Citizenship: Aristotle argues that even those who do not hold formal titles of power (e.g., jurors or assemblymen) should still be considered as holding political office, as they partake in important decision-making functions.
  • Debate over Terminology: There may be a dispute over the term “office,” but Aristotle argues that it is a mere matter of words. He suggests introducing the term “indefinite office” to describe citizens who participate in such roles without formal time limitations.

6. Definition of the Citizen in Different Regimes (1275b)

• Applicability of the Definition of Citizen: Aristotle proposes that the definition of a citizen as one who participates in decision-making fits best within a democracy.
  • In a democracy, the people themselves hold significant power through their roles as jurors or assemblymen, and the regime depends on their participation.
• Citizenship in Other Regimes:
  • In oligarchies, tyrannies, or other regimes, the definition may not apply universally. For example, in these regimes, not all citizens participate in decision-making.
  • Sparta and Carthage as Examples:
    • In Sparta, different cases are adjudicated by different officials (e.g., senators handle murder cases).
    • In Carthage, certain offices handle all judicial cases.
  • In these regimes, only certain groups or officials participate in decision-making, limiting the extent of citizenship for the broader population.
• Correction of the Definition: Aristotle allows for corrections in defining citizenship depending on the regime in question, acknowledging that different types of rule may have different standards for political participation.

7. Conclusion: The Self-Sufficient City (1275b)

• Final Definition of Citizen: Based on the analysis, Aristotle concludes that a citizen is one who has the right to share in an office involving deliberation or decision-making.
  • This definition applies most clearly to democratic regimes, where participation in public affairs is central.
• Definition of the City: A city (polis) is defined as a multitude of such citizens—people who participate in governance—sufficient to support a self-sufficient life.
  • The city is not merely a collection of inhabitants, but a structured political community where citizens contribute to the city’s political and legal life, ensuring its stability and self-sufficiency.

Expanded Analysis:

Aristotle’s discussion in Chapter 1 of Politics, Book 3, delves into the fundamental question of citizenship and its connection to the regime. He begins by exploring the nature of the city as a composite entity made up of citizens, then turns to the complex issue of defining who qualifies as a citizen. Aristotle critiques common assumptions about citizenship, emphasizing that true citizenship is not merely a matter of residence or legal standing, but rather involves active political participation.

His exploration of different regimes highlights that citizenship is defined differently depending on the type of political system. In democratic regimes, where citizens participate in decision-making and hold offices like jurors and assemblymen, the role of the citizen is expansive. In oligarchic or tyrannical regimes, citizenship is more restricted, as fewer people have the opportunity to partake in governance.

Ultimately, Aristotle defines the city as a community of citizens who actively participate in governance, and the regime as the arrangement of these citizens into a functioning political order. His inquiry sets the stage for a broader exploration of the types of regimes and the role of citizens within them, as he continues his political analysis in later chapters.