BOOK III Chapter 2 The Citizen

Chapter 2

1. Traditional Definition of Citizenship (1275b–1276a)

• Common Understanding of a Citizen:
  • In everyday usage, a citizen is often defined as a person whose parents are both citizens. This definition assumes citizenship is inherited, requiring both father and mother to be citizens.
  • Some people go further, requiring proof of citizenship for several generations, not just one or two, suggesting a more restrictive view of citizenship.
• Ancestral Lineage and the Problem of First Citizens:
  • This raises a logical problem: How were the first citizens in a city defined? If citizenship depends on one's parents being citizens, how could the original founders or first inhabitants of a city be considered citizens?
  • Aristotle uses this to highlight the limitations of defining citizenship solely based on ancestry.

2. Gorgias’ Irony on Citizenship (1276a)

• Gorgias of Leontini's Argument:
  • The sophist Gorgias humorously suggests that just as a craftsman makes objects, citizens (such as Larisaeans, inhabitants of the city of Larisa) are made by citizen-makers. This ironic statement raises the question of how citizenship is determined and reflects the absurdity of some traditional definitions.
  • The analogy suggests that citizenship cannot simply be a matter of ancestry, but must be based on something else, such as participation in the regime.

3. Citizenship and Participation in the Regime (1276a)

• Participation as the Core of Citizenship:
  • Aristotle clarifies that participation in the regime is the essential defining characteristic of a citizen. It is not enough to be born to citizen parents; one must take part in the political system of the city.
  • This view implies that the first inhabitants or founders of a city were citizens because they participated in the creation and governance of the city. Their citizenship could not have been inherited but was based on their role in the political community.

4. The Case of Cleisthenes and Citizenship after Revolutions (1276a)

• Revolutionary Changes to Citizenship:
  • Aristotle introduces a more complex issue: what happens when the definition of citizenship is altered due to political revolutions or reforms? He gives the example of Cleisthenes, an Athenian statesman, who radically expanded citizenship after the expulsion of the tyrants.
    • Cleisthenes enrolled foreigners and alien slaves into the Athenian tribes, granting them citizenship, which sparked debates about whether this was just or unjust.
  • The question here is not whether these new citizens are citizens by law, but whether they are rightfully citizens.

5. The Question of Justice in Citizenship (1276a)

• Justice and Citizenship:
  • Aristotle explores whether unjustly granted citizenship is still valid citizenship. He raises the question: Is someone who is unjustly a citizen truly a citizen?
    • This question hinges on the idea that "unjust" and "false" might be equivalent, meaning that if citizenship is unjustly given, it may be considered false and therefore invalid.
• Comparison with Unjust Rulers:
  • To answer this question, Aristotle compares the situation to that of unjust rulers. Even though certain rulers may govern unjustly, they are still recognized as rulers, though unjust ones.
  • By analogy, someone who holds the office of citizen (participates in the regime) is indeed a citizen, even if their citizenship was granted unjustly. The fact of holding a citizen’s role in the political system overrides questions of whether they deserve it.

6. Conclusion: Participation in Office Defines Citizenship (1276a)

• Final Clarification on Citizenship:
  • Aristotle concludes that those who participate in the regime, specifically through holding offices or roles within the political system, must be regarded as citizens.
  • This conclusion emphasizes that citizenship is primarily about active involvement in the political life of the city, rather than simply being conferred by birth or lineage.
  • Even if their citizenship is questioned in terms of justice, their role in governance confirms their status as citizens.

Expanded Analysis:

In Chapter 2 of Politics Book 3, Aristotle addresses a critical issue regarding the definition and nature of citizenship. He begins by presenting the common view that citizenship is inherited from one's parents, but he quickly points out the limitations of this view, particularly when applied to the first inhabitants of a city.

Through the humorous example of Gorgias, Aristotle emphasizes that citizenship must be based on active participation in the political regime, not just ancestry. He uses the example of Cleisthenes' reforms in Athens to explore the complexities of citizenship after political revolutions, where citizenship was extended to previously excluded groups, such as foreigners and slaves.

The heart of the chapter revolves around the question of whether unjustly granted citizenship is still valid. Aristotle argues that, like unjust rulers, citizens who hold political office, even if their citizenship is contested, are still citizens by virtue of their participation in the regime.

Aristotle’s inquiry in this chapter lays the foundation for his broader discussion of regimes and political justice, highlighting the fluid and contested nature of citizenship in ancient political systems. His focus on participation as the defining feature of citizenship offers a practical approach to understanding political membership beyond inherited status or legal definitions.