BOOK III Chapter 6 The Regime its Definition

Chapter 6

1. Introduction: Investigating the Nature of Regimes (1278b)

• Key Inquiry: Aristotle shifts to the investigation of whether there is one regime or many regimes, and if many, how many there are and what the differences are between them.
• Definition of Regime: The regime (politeia) is defined as the arrangement of a city with respect to its offices, especially the office that has authority over all matters.
  • The regime is synonymous with the governing body, which is the ruling authority in the city.
• Examples of Regimes:
  • In a democracy, the people hold authority.
  • In an oligarchy, the few hold authority.
  • Different regimes are distinguished by who holds power and how political authority is structured.

2. Purpose of the City and Modes of Rule (1278b–1279a)

• Purpose of the City: Aristotle asserts that to understand regimes, one must first identify the purpose for which the city is established.
  • The city exists to facilitate human life and promote the common advantage, particularly the ability to live finely.
  • Social Nature of Humans: Aristotle reiterates that man is by nature a political animal and, even when not in need, naturally yearns to live together with others.
  • Living for Its Own Sake: People come together for the sake of living itself, which has a natural joy and sweetness, even when life includes hardships.
• Modes of Rule: Different kinds of rule are connected to various human relationships and communities, such as:
  • Mastery: Rule over slaves, aimed primarily at the advantage of the master, though indirectly for the slave’s benefit.
  • Household Management: Rule over wife, children, and the household, which is generally for the sake of the ruled or something common to both parties.

3. Mastery vs. Political Rule (1279a)

• Mastery: Rule over slaves by nature is inherently for the master’s benefit, but it also ensures the preservation of the slave, as the master’s rule cannot continue if the slave is destroyed.
• Household Rule: In household management, rule over wife and children is primarily for their benefit, much like the arts (e.g., medicine benefits the patient, gymnastics benefits the trainee).
  • However, rulers can sometimes benefit indirectly, as in the case of a trainer who may also participate in gymnastics, or a pilot who is also a sailor.
  • Political Rule: In a regime based on equality and similarity among citizens, each individual claims a right to rule in turn. Initially, they ruled to serve the common good, but now they seek continuous rule to derive personal benefits from political office.

4. Shift from Natural to Deviant Rule (1279a)

• Natural Rotation of Rule: In the early stages, citizens sought to take turns ruling and being ruled, serving the common good. Each ruler governed for the benefit of others and expected the same treatment in return when ruled.
• Desire for Continuous Rule: Over time, citizens began to seek continuous rule for personal gain, particularly to benefit from the advantages of office and public resources. This desire is likened to a sick person seeking constant medicine, pursuing office as if it would heal them.

5. Correct vs. Errant Regimes (1279a–1279b)

• Correct Regimes:
  • Aristotle argues that the regimes that serve the common advantage are the correct regimes, based on what is just in an absolute sense.
• Errant (Deviant) Regimes:
  • Regimes that only serve the advantage of the rulers are errant regimes, which deviate from the correct form of governance.
  • These regimes involve a form of mastery rather than political rule, treating the city as if it were a community of masters and slaves rather than free persons.

6. Conclusion: The City as a Community of Free Persons (1279b)

• Political Communities: Aristotle emphasizes that a city is fundamentally a community of free persons, and the ruling authority should aim to serve the common good, rather than the private interests of those in power.
• Importance of Just Rule: The distinction between correct and errant regimes is based on whether the rulers act for the common advantage or for their own self-interest. Correct regimes maintain the city as a community of equals, while errant regimes resemble mastery over slaves.

Expanded Analysis:

In Chapter 6 of Politics Book 3, Aristotle delves into the classification of regimes and the distinction between correct and errant forms of governance. He begins by asking whether there is one regime or many, and how these regimes differ in terms of who holds political authority. The regime, or politeia, is central to Aristotle’s political theory because it represents the governing body and the arrangement of power within the city.

Aristotle examines the purpose of the city, stressing that it exists to facilitate living well and to support the common good. The city's political structure should reflect this purpose, aiming at the well-being of all citizens. He also distinguishes different modes of rule, such as mastery (rule over slaves) and household management, noting that political rule differs from these because it is supposed to benefit all citizens equally.

Aristotle highlights the tension between natural rule, where citizens rotate in power to serve the common good, and the deviant desire for continuous rule, where individuals seek to monopolize power for personal gain. This desire for permanent rule leads to the establishment of errant regimes, which prioritize the rulers’ interests over those of the community.

In conclusion, Aristotle defines correct regimes as those that govern for the common advantage, while errant regimes are deviations that serve only the rulers. His focus on justice and the city as a community of free persons sets the foundation for his broader exploration of different forms of governance and the role of virtue in political life.