over one another both through their acquiescence and through just law (Frisby and Sayer, 1986: 15).
There is, for Aristotle, a natural and unnatural way of acquiring a good or object. Though they share with animals the acquisition of goods from their surrounding environment, humans also possess different ways of living through their natural productive labour: as nomads who move with their domesticated animals; as hunters and pirates; and by agriculture. Some peoples combine all three types of existence. Just as these modes of acquisition are given by nature, so too is the food chain. This includes acquiring animals, but also other peoples; war itself is a result of nature.
There is, however, a second method of acquiring goods. In what was to become central to Marx’s argument in his distinction between use-value and exchange-value in Capital, Aristotle argues that pieces of property have a double use, one of which is the proper use, the other for exchange. For example, a shoe can be put on a foot, its proper use, or become an object of exchange, an improper use. The latter emerges as a result of the mutual needs of many individual households having too much of one good and not enough of the other. Exchange is not contrary to nature since it aims to re-establish nature’s own equilibrium of self-sufficiency. It is on this basis that money-making arose. Trade was initially a simple affair but became more complex as people became aware of where the greatest profits could be made from exchanges. However, when trade goes beyond the self-sufficiency required by a community it becomes unnatural since the unlimited acquisition of wealth becomes an end in itself for some people. For Aristotle the constitution is the citizen-body and constitutions can be distinguished according to the numbers of those who rule. Hence in democracies the masses are sovereign while in oligarchies it is only the few. There are three correct constitutions which can be differentiated in terms of numbers and that aim at the common good – monarchy (kingship), aristocracy and ‘polity’. In the first one man has virtue; in the second, the best few rule; in the last, some, but not all rule since it is difficult for a large number to gain virtue except in military terms. Corresponding to these there exist three deviant constitutions that aim at the private advantage of the rulers – tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. These constitutions are ranked with hereditary monarchy being the best, aristocracy next, followed by polity, democracy, oligarchy, with tyranny rooted at the bottom. However, Aristotle then modifies this view of constitutions by arguing that we in fact need to look at economic factors for distinguishing constitutions rather than simply numerical criteria: ‘what really differentiates oligarchy and democracy is wealth or the lack of it. It inevitably follows that where men rule because of the possession of wealth, whether their number be large or small, that is oligarchy, and when the poor rule, that is democracy’ (Aristotle, 1998: 1279b26).
Criticisms
Aristotle’s work has been criticised in a number of respects. His analysis of causal and functional explanation has been seen as especially problematical. It is not clear why he assumes animate and inanimate objects, including humans, only have one unique function. His theory of ethics and acting in relation to the golden mean has also been criticised for being too vague since it may tell us that the right acts are between two extremes but little else, or more precisely it fails to guide how individuals ought to act in actual situations. His analysis in the Nicomachean Ethics also has Greek aristocratic values and virtues underpinning it (MacIntyre, 1988).
His politics has also been criticised for its discussion of slavery and its naturalisation. However, these were views shared widely in Greek society at the time. There is also a vacillation running throughout his political work between a desire to emphasise the importance of politics and political activity for humans as part of their rational aspect on the one hand, which is central to democratic thinking, and a desire to emphasise the contemplative life (Kelsen, 1937).
Contemporary Relevance
The influence of Plato and Aristotle on Western thought has been profound. This is in a two-fold sense. In a general sense their ideas have filtered down to pervade Western forms of thinking in art, literature, politics and philosophy, and in Aristotle’s case physics and biology.
Plato’s Philosopher Kings
In The Republic, Plato elaborates a theory of expert rule by ‘philosopher kings’ as an alternative to majoritarian democracy. Through the Ship of State metaphor, governance is likened to the command of a sea-going vessel, such that only those suitably qualified should be considered fit to captain. The implication is that public rule is a less effective steering mechanism than knowledgeable leadership, and that ruling requires suitable skills. The ideal statesman is thus a specially trained philosopher, dedicated to the good of the city-state rather than political ambition. As an enlightened ruler, the philosopher king courts true knowledge over the whims of the masses. This exceptional leader should then be granted absolute power, safeguarded by his virtuous, benevolent and incorruptible character. Fundamentally anti-democratic, this idea was influential in the Roman Empire, with Marcus Aurelius approximating the ideal, as well as in early modern monarchical Europe. Today, the idea of enlightened leadership is carried in the ideology of technocracy, which advocates governance by technical experts rather than elected officials.
In a more particular sense, their ideas were central to the teachings of classics which most nineteenth- and some twentieth-century sociologists undertook as part of their educational training. Those who we consider today as the paradigmatic sociological thinkers, for example, Marx, Weber and Durkheim in their discussion of alienation, rationalisation and anomie, all drew on analyses of ancient Greece and antiquity as well as critical engagements with the Enlightenment. Sometimes this was direct; in other cases mediated by the work of Hegel, Nietzsche and Montesquieu, respectively. As Ste. Croix notes:
Marx read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find him describing Aristotle as ‘the acme [Gipfel] of ancient philosophy’ (MECW 1.424); and in Vol. I of Capital he refers to ‘the brilliance of Aristotle’s genius’ and calls him ‘a giant thinker’ and ‘the greatest thinker of antiquity’. (1981: 24)
[Republished with permission of Cornell University Press from The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests, G. E. M. de Ste Croix, 1981]
Marx’s critique of the market draws on Aristotle’s political writings, while the development of a rational communist society, and the distinction between how things appear and how they really are, from Plato. Durkheim’s discussion of the political forms of the collective consciousness draw from his understanding of the Greek Polis, his discussion of the division of labour, derive from both Plato and Aristotle, his discussion of functionalism from Aristotle, while his discussion of education is rooted in Plato. Weber’s discussion of the iron cage and the difference between ancient and modern forms of commerce, and the division between reason and instincts, also draws on Greek thought. The influence of the classical thinkers on the classical sociologists was evident not only in the latter’s critique of political economy, the origins of capitalism, and the formation of collective consciousness and social solidarity, but also in their science and method. All three held the role of social science to be moral – to foster self-realisation, rational discourse or democratic community. McCarthy argues:
From this perspective, sociology is distinctive among the social sciences since its intellectual foundations rest in the remembered landscape of Attica. Modern social theory, science, and critique were formed by a synthesis of empirical and historical research methods with classical Greek assumptions about the nature of knowledge, community, virtue, political freedom, and social justice. By blending together the ancients and moderns, nineteenth century sociology became the most unusual of the social sciences because it self-consciously attempted to integrate empirical research and philosophy, science and the humanities,
