Thursday, 23 July 2009
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Aristotle - The Politics - Book 4
Hard Copy: Folder A, File 1
Referencing:
Aristotle. n.d. The Politics, trans. E. Barker. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.
Aristotle, The Politics
Aristotle (n.d)
(Aristotle n.d)
Summary
Chapter I
Referencing:
Aristotle. n.d. The Politics, trans. E. Barker. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.
Aristotle, The Politics
Aristotle (n.d)
(Aristotle n.d)
Summary
Chapter I
Places politics in the category "arts and sciences", complete in one whole genus of itself (rather than in parts). The purpose of this art is to find out "what government is best". Politics is a compromise; the legislator and politician must be acquainted with not just "that which is most perfectly imaginable, but also that which is the best suited to any given circumstances". But it is not enough just to be able to perceive what government is best, unless it can be put into practice.
(more)
The governed unit is a city rather than a nation state.
Every legislator ought to establish such a form of government as from {the present state and disposition of the people who are to receive it} they will most readily submit to and persuade the community to partake of. (The people who receive it, and the community mentioned may not be society as a whole, just the privileged parts, so this does not necessarily represent a democratic principle.)
The legislator is he who practises the art, and ought to be able to correct the mistakes of a government already established.. so must know how many different forms of government there are.
All laws ought to be agreeable to the state that is to be governed by them (as opposed to the other way around).
Chapter II
3 sorts of regular government - the kingly, the aristocratical, and the free states, with their excesses - tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. (Democracy being the excess of the free state). A free state is the best of all worlds, but it is possible without / indeed separate from, a democracy. The democracy is the least harmful of the 3 excesses (tyranny the worst).
Chapter III
Government is the ordering of the magistracies of the state. There can be as many forms of government as there are ranks in society, as each rank will attempt to attain control over the magistracies.
Essentially there are 2 types of government: of the many, and of the few. The democracy and the oligarchy.
Chapter IV
(Aristotle's analysis condenses society into 2 groups, the poor and the rich.) Democracy is a state where the freemen and the poor, being the majority, are invested with the power of the state. An oligarchy is a state where the rich and those of noble families being few possess it.
In the city there are 8 groups of people including the men at arms, and the rich (who serve the public at their own charge).
The most pure form of democracy embodies an equality whereby power is equally shared between the 2 groups, the poor and the rich. A democracy requires that power is vested in the laws not the government, lest the first offices of state are not filled by men of worth but by demagogues.
Chapter VI
A general theme of the piece is that the state is an organic being of mutual influence with the groups of people who live within its boundaries. Whether the government is formed by the rich or poor, and depending on the resources available to the state, government will be by laws or by the people, and balanced or imbalanced as a result.
Claims on the workings of different government types are made. These are not formalised hypotheses or directly testable assertions. For example, when an oligarchy is formed of men with moderate means, the power will be in the laws rather than the people, as they do not have sufficient fortune to neglect their private affairs (and rule like monarchs).
There are a number of similar observations made as statements without an attempt to justify through systematic evidence, case selection etc.
Chapter VII
The aristrocracy is a lauded form of state, composed of noble men - "the best men under virtuous principles". An aristocracy is where the virtuous have a share in the administration. Carthage favoured the rich, the virtuous and the citizens at large and hence was an aristocracy. Lacedaemon favoured virtue and the citizens at large so was a democracy.
Chapter VIII
What is a free state? It is a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. Those that incline more to the former are aristrocracies and the latter democracies. Aristotle believes that an aristrocracy is most likely to confer the honours of the state on the virtuous.
Chapter IX
How do an oligarchy and a democracy differ and how might they be blended together? The best proof of a happy mixture is when one person may call the same state both a democracy and an oligarchy. Oligarchies choose magistrates and officers by vote whereas democracies do it by lot.
Chapter X
What makes a kindom a tyranny? Some kings possess only kingly power regulated by law, and rule only those who volunarily submit to their government. Others rule despotically according to their own will. The third type of tyrant rules through compulsion for his own personal gain and no freemen will ever willingly submit to such government.
Chapter XI
Personal morality of the subjects and governers is important in proper state formation. "A happy life must arise from an uninterrupted course of virtue... the middle life is the happiest... which medium is attainable by everyone." The very rich are too despotic and the very poor are too mean. Even in point of fortune mediocrity is to be preferred.
A city of freemen involves friendship and political community, not slaves and masters. Material equality is necessary for men not to be jealous of others' (or their own) possessions.
"We must now consider as proof of what I now advance" - (moving into the realm of the scientific?) - "that the best lawgivers were those of the middle rank in life"..."amongst whom was Solon, as is evident from his poems, and Lycurgus, for he was not a king" (No). Whenever those were in the middle state has been too small, either the poor or the rich overpowered them and created a democracy or oligarchy (instead of a free state).
Chapter XIII
How the rich seek to undermine the rights of the people: public assemblies (only fining the rich for not attending), offices of state (permitting the poor to swear off, but not permitting those who are in the census to do the same), courts of justice (fining the rich for non-attendance but..), military power (poor are allowed not to hold arms, rich not), gymnastic exercises (no penalty on poor for not doing them). In a democracy the opposites happen.
Chapter XIV
Three things in states that the legislator ought to consider. The public assembly, the officers of state and the judicial department.
Friday, 17 July 2009
Comparative Politics Rationality, Cuture and Structure - Chapeter 1
Research Traditions and Theory in Comparative Politics: an Introduction
(Zuckerman and Lichbach)
Comparative politics was born of social theory (to read- Eckstein, 1963)
Eckstein says that comparative politics has the right to claim Aristotle as an ancestor because of the primacy put on politics among the sciences
To Research - the renaissance and the enlightenment. Many of the influentials (the progenitors) of the movement lived during these times. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Smith, Montiesquieu
The classic theorists of social science: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Patero, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels - established the field's research agenda, mode of analysis, and contrasting theoretical visions.
The contemporary theorists "drew on this heritage to rebuild and invigorate the field".
Z&L are claiming 4 main movements. The early ancestors. The more direct progenitors of the renaissance and enlightenment. The classic theorists who formalised the structure. And the contemporary refiners.
"Comparatives want to understand the critical events of the day, a position that ensures the dreams of theory address the political world as it exists, not formal abstractions or utopias". Answering the Big Questions in the context of today.
Z&L's framework for academic enquiry and knowledge creation. Their epistemology (?).
1. Comparative politics has an ambitious scope of enquiry. No element of politics too obscure to study, no method of analysis irrelevant.
2. Comparatives assert an ambitious intellectual vision in that they approach these substantive concerns with general questions in mind. - - students of comparative politics examine a case to discover what it tells us about wider phenomena -- (so)
3. Comparatives therefore insist that analysis requires specific comparisons.
The comparative method is required to capture epoch-shaping developments that have global significance, unlike studies of single countries and abstract theorising. (i.e. you read everything you can about everything, and understand the fuck out of it).
It was in the 1960s that the founders of contemporary comparative politics initiated the most recent effort to merge theory and data in the study of politics. One of the guiding principles:
"The proper study of politics requires systematic comparisons".
So you need to use data in a systematic (scientific) way. Scientific theories and testable hypotheses come to the fore. But this is not to say comparative politics is limited to this approach (see Brown) - the comparisons and use of data must simply be "systematic".
The 3 competing traditions in comparative politics. 3 Schools of Enquiry
1. Rational choice theorists follow the path laid out by Hobbes, Smith and Pareto
2. Culturalists: Montiesquieu, Weber, Mosca
3. Structuralists: Marx, Weber
The culturists often have strong doubts about the ability to generalise to abstract categories and create explanations that apply to more than the case at hand.
Rational choice theorists seek to maximise the ability to produce universal laws that may be used in nomothetic explanations...
NOMOTHETIC: literally means "proposition of the law". In sociology, nomothetic explanation presents a generalized understanding of a given case, and is contrasted with idiographic explanation, which presents a full description of a given case.
... although the culturalists may be more concerned with idographic explanations than nomothetic ones. They maximise the importance of reliability of reasearch evidence.
The 3 schools focus on 3 respective ontological approaches. Rationalists study how actors use reason to make choices. Culturalists study the rules that actors are bound by. Structuralists study the relations among actors in an institutional context. Positivism, interpretivism and realism are the possible philosophies of the rationalist, culturalist and structuralist schools.
(more)
Comparative Politics Rationality, Cuture and Structure
Edited by Mark Irving Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman
(more)
Published Cambridge University Press 1997
Read so far...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)