BOOK III Chapter 3 Who is the Citizen

Chapter 3

1. Introduction: The Justice of Citizenship and Political Change (1276a)

• Question of Just or Unjust Citizenship: Aristotle begins by revisiting the issue of whether some people are justly or unjustly considered citizens. This question is related to the broader topic of whether certain political actions should be attributed to the city or to a specific regime, particularly during regime changes (e.g., when a democracy replaces an oligarchy or tyranny).
• Political Disputes and Contracts: Aristotle introduces the example of individuals refusing to honor contracts made under a previous regime. Some claim that agreements made under a tyranny or oligarchy should not be honored because it was the tyrant, not the city, who entered into them. This introduces the idea that certain regimes exist for the benefit of domination, not for the common good.

2. The City’s Identity Across Regime Changes (1276a)

• Regime Change and Political Authority: Aristotle notes that if a democracy governs in the same manner as a tyrant (i.e., for its own interest rather than the common good), its actions must be viewed as the city’s actions in the same way as those of an oligarchy or tyranny. This highlights a key issue: whether the city is the same entity under different regimes.
• Key Question: The fundamental question becomes whether the city remains the same when its regime changes. Aristotle frames this as a problem of continuity, focusing on the nature of the city’s identity when political systems shift.

3. Superficial Examination: Location and Population (1276a–1276b)

• Superficial Criteria for City Identity: Aristotle examines superficial ways to determine whether a city is the same or different.
  • Location and Population: The most basic way to identify a city might be by its location and the human beings that inhabit it. Even if different people live in the same location, the city might still be considered the same, and vice versa.
  • Continuity of Walls and Structures: Aristotle argues that the physical infrastructure of a city, such as its walls, does not define its identity. For example, a large wall could surround the entire Peloponnese, yet that would not make it one city. He gives the example of Babylon, which was so large that its capture went unnoticed in parts of the city for days.

4. Deepening the Inquiry: The City as a Community (1276b)

• The City as a Community of Citizens: Aristotle refines the inquiry, suggesting that the community of citizens, not the location or physical structures, defines the city. A city is more than just its geographical space; it is a political entity shaped by the regime under which it operates.
  • Example of Rivers and Springs: Aristotle uses the analogy of rivers and springs, which are called the same even though they are constantly changing as water flows through them. This suggests that continuity in the city may involve both stability and change.
  • Regime Changes and City Identity: The question then becomes whether a city remains the same when its regime changes. Even if the same people live in a city, if the regime (the political structure) changes, it may no longer be considered the same city.

5. The Role of the Regime in Defining the City (1276b)

• Regime as the Defining Feature of the City: Aristotle argues that the regime is the most important factor in determining the identity of a city.
  • Political Communities and Their Forms: Just as a chorus changes its identity when it shifts from comic to tragic, or a musical mode changes when it shifts from Dorian to Phrygian, a city becomes a different entity when its regime changes.
  • Identity Beyond Human Inhabitants: The people inhabiting the city may remain the same, but the city’s identity is tied to its political structure. A change in regime, therefore, changes the nature of the city itself.

6. Conclusion: The City's Identity and Regime Change (1276b)

• City Identity and Justice in Contracts: Aristotle concludes that it is the regime that primarily determines whether a city is the same or different. Therefore, even if the inhabitants of a city do not change, a city with a different regime is, in a sense, a different city.
  • Contractual Obligations and Regime Changes: The question of whether to honor contracts made under a previous regime when the city undergoes a political revolution is a separate matter. However, the regime's change suggests that the city’s political and legal obligations might also shift.

Expanded Analysis:

In Chapter 3 of Politics, Book 3, Aristotle tackles the philosophical problem of a city’s identity and how it changes when a regime shifts. He first introduces the question of whether citizens created by previous regimes (like tyrannies or oligarchies) are justly considered citizens. This leads to a broader inquiry into whether the city itself remains the same across political transformations.

Aristotle initially addresses superficial ways to define a city, such as its location or population, but he quickly dismisses these as inadequate. Instead, he emphasizes that a city is primarily a political community of citizens. The city’s identity, therefore, is tied to its regime, or the way in which it organizes political life.

A key takeaway is that even if the people and physical structures of a city remain the same, a change in regime transforms the city into a new political entity. This insight is crucial for understanding how political changes affect citizenship and legal obligations. Aristotle leaves open the question of whether contracts made under a previous regime should be honored, suggesting that this issue depends on the nature of the regime change.

This chapter provides important philosophical groundwork for understanding the fluid nature of political communities and the central role that regimes play in shaping the identity of cities.