Aristotle’s book Politics discussed the origins of political states and the different ways to organize them. Reflecting on his research into many fields in science, Aristotle connected his theories on the structures of politics to his ideas that emerged from his investigations of the fundamental principles of the natural world. In this excerpt, Aristotle explains that the polis (city-state) was a creation of nature.
Since we see that every city-state is a type of partnership and that every partnership is established for the sake of some good, because everything that everyone does is motivated by what seems to them to be a good, it is clear that, with all partnerships aiming at some good, the most authoritative partnership, which includes all other partnerships, does this the most of all and aims at the most authoritative of all goods. This is what is called the city-state, that is, the political partnership. . . .
If one looks at things as they grow from the beginning, one will make the best observations, on this topic and all others. Necessity first brings together those who cannot exist without each other, that is, on the one hand, the female and the male for the purpose of reproduction. This is not a matter of choice, but just as with the other animals and with plants, it is a matter of nature to desire to leave behind another of the same kind. On the other hand, [necessity brings together] the ruler and the one who is naturally ruled for the sake of his security, because the one who is able to foresee things with his mind is by nature a ruler and by nature a master, while the one who is able to do things with his body is the one who is ruled and is by nature a slave. For this reason the same thing benefits master and slave. . . .
From these two partnerships comes first the household, and Hesiod spoke correctly, saying, “First of all, [get yourself] a house and a wife and an ox for plowing,”1 because the ox is a household slave for a poor man. Therefore, the partnership that is established first by nature for everyday purposes is the household. . . .
The partnership that first arises from multiple households for the sake of more than everyday needs is the village. The village seems by nature to be a colony from the household. . . .
The final partnership of multiple villages is the city-state, which possesses the limit of self-sufficiency, so to speak. It comes into being for the sake of living, but it exists for the sake of living well. Every city-state therefore exists by nature, if it is true that the first partnerships do. . . . It is clear that the city-state belongs to the things existing by nature, and that humans are beings who by nature live in a city-state, and that the one who has no city-state by nature and not by chance is either a fool or a superhuman.
Source: Aristotle, Politics, Book 1.1–2, 1252a1–1253a19. Translation by Thomas R. Martin.
Question to Consider
On what specific ideas does Aristotle base his explanation of the origins and character of the city-state as a form of political and social organization? Does he make a convincing argument? Why or why not?