‘Citizens but second-class: women in Aristotle’s Politics’ (original) (raw)
Women and Natural Hierarchy in Aristotle
Hypatia, 1994
In this paper, I examine the frame of reference in Aristotle's Politics within which he makes claims about women and their place in his conception of politics.
Family Matters: Aristotle's Appreciation of Women and the Plural Structure of Society
The American Political Science Review, 1996
Aristotle is no misogynist, but the way this charge is answered can skew the understanding of his political theory as a whole. Those who dismiss the charge of misogyny on grounds that Aristotle covertly advocates women's participation in civic affairs tend to obscure the leading thesis of thePolitics, namely, that polis and household differ in kind, not merely in number. I argue that Aristotle condones the exclusion of women from civic affairs because this practice conforms to the natural complementarity of the sexes and because it fortifies the naturally pluralistic structure of society. By securing these underpinnings, Aristotle frames a constitution that best supports women and men in their pursuit of human excellence.
A Serious Education for Women in Aristotle's Politics?
Aristotle's low estimation of women is infamous. In addition to the dubious embryology found in his biological works (where the "female" contribution to the offspring is regarded as secondary to the "male" contribution, and the female child is regarded as an incomplete version of the male), 1 Aristotle, in the first book of the Politics, appears to endorse a relation of permanent domestic inequality between husband and wife on the basis of the latter's allegedly unauthoritative deliberative capacity. 2 It is thus a curious moment when, towards the very end of the first book, Aristotle announces that a forthcoming discussion will deal with the excellence and education of women. Having just described how the virtue of a slave derives from that of his master, Aristotle continues:
Some Remarks on the First Book of Aristotle's Politics
Wisdom , 2018
This article is devoted to a sequential analysis of the first book of Aristotle's Politics. It suggests an interpretation of the classical problem of natural hierarchy of men as it described in the first book of the treatise. In this book, Aristotle examines seven commonly held definitions of a slave – four " natural " and three " conventional " ones – and then offers his own eighth definition, placed right in the middle between nature and convention. The article exclusively deals with the first book of Politics and avoids invoking other books of the treatise as well as other works of Aristotle because in classical political philosophy every statement is highly contextualized and could not be simply quoted in order to prove or disprove any point of view without preceding deep examination.
Aristophanes and Aristocracy. Political Gender and the Hermeneutics of Desire.
This paper is concerned with the study of gender as political metaphor. It argues that in ancient Athens, or indeed in other pre-industrial societies, the aristocracy had symbolic feminine attributes, and that "political gender" was performed by the people of the time in order to allegorically signify the political relationships between different social classes; essentially this means that gender and love were perceived as mediums of political expression. His-story, the contemporary production of the past through the lens of "big men", ignores the role of symbolic women, projecting instead today's hyper masculine worldview of what it means to be part of the elite. Mostly based on capital strength and the idea that the nobility was synonymous with warlords and brute force, this view has the direct result of excluding Eros from the political conversation that residually survives in ancient texts. Eros, thus exiled to an exclusively private sphere, such as the private life of individuals, has lost nowadays its multifaceted ancient meanings, and this paper is a step towards recovering them.
Antiopi Argyriou-Casmeridis (MPhil student in Classics, University of Cambridge) 'Aristotle: an "outsider" in politics?' As the questionmark of the title chosen for my presentation suggests, it might at first sight appear rather contradictory that Aristotle, the philosopher most famous for his political theory and his books on Politics, was considered during his lifetime as an 'outsider' in politics. Starting from this premise, my paper is aiming to: first, discuss some aspects of Aristotle's biography; second, extract historical information from his letters and his last will; and third, focus on the political situation during his lifetime and on his political connections that explain his role as an 'outsider'.
Aristotle Politics: A commentary
In this commentary on Aristotle's 'Politics', I aim to offer a detailed and insightful exploration of one of the most pivotal works in political philosophy. By delving into Aristotle's Politics, I will provide not only a concise summary of its key ideas and themes but also endeavor to present a thought-provoking commentary that sheds light on its significance and enduring relevance. Aristotle's Politics stands as a seminal treatise on the fundamental nature of politics, examining the organization and functioning of human societies, the purpose of governance, and the ideal state. Within its pages, Aristotle presents a systematic analysis of political structures, forms of government, and the virtues and vices inherent in different political systems. Moreover, he addresses the complexities of human nature, the role of ethics in politics, and the pursuit of the common good. Through my commentary, I will dissect Aristotle's arguments and elucidate the philosophical foundations that underpin his ideas. I will explore his notions of justice, the nature of citizenship, and the relationship between the individual and the state. Additionally, I will delve into his views on the ideal state and its components, such as the rule of law, education, and the distribution of resources. Please note that the bold text represents a summary of the original passage from Aristotle, while the italicized text indicates my reflection and commentary on Aristotle's ideas. This formatting convention serves to distinguish between the two types of content and provide clarity for the reader. The purpose of the bold text, which summarizes the original passage from Aristotle, is to condense and encapsulate the main points or essential arguments made by Aristotle in his work. It aims to present a concise overview of Aristotle's ideas, enabling readers to grasp the core concepts without delving into the minutiae of the original text. On the other hand, the italicized text signifies my personal thoughts, interpretations, and analysis in response to Aristotle's ideas. It serves as a platform for me to engage with Aristotle's work, offering my own perspective, critique, or support. The commentary can expand upon the original passage, provide additional context or examples, raise questions, or explore the implications of Aristotle's ideas in contemporary contexts. By utilizing this formatting approach of bold and italicized text, I have tried to provide a clear structure to the writing. This structure allows readers to easily distinguish between Aristotle's original ideas and my reflections, fostering a deeper understanding of the text. Furthermore, it encourages readers to critically engage with the original passage, consider multiple viewpoints, and form their own interpretations based on the interplay between the bold summary and the italicized commentary.
Aristotle’s Social and Political Philosophy
The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, 2010
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) came to Athens as a young man to study in Plato's Academy. Upon Plato's death nearly twenty years later, Aristotle left Athens to spend time in Asia Minor and in Lesbos, returning in 343 B.C.E. to his home in Macedonia. In 335 B.C.E. he went back to Athens to set up his own school in the Lyceum, where he remained until the death of Alexander (323 B.C.E.) unleashed anti-Macedonian sentiments in Athens and he was charged with impiety. He fled to nearby Chalcis where he died about a year later. Most of the works Aristotle wrote for publication are lost; what survive are later compilations of works written for use within his school. Aristotle's most influential political ideas connect human nature and its flourishing with political activity, ideally under a constitution in which virtuous citizens take turns at ruling and being ruled. This essay falls into three parts. Section 1 guides the reader through the first book of the Politics to acquaint her with the major concerns of Aristotle's political philosophy. Section 2 focuses on Aristotle's famous claims that the human being is by nature a political animal, that the polis (city-state) 1 is natural, and that the polis is naturally prior to the individual, who belongs to the polis. Section 3 examines Aristotle's ideal politeia (constitution) in the light of his criticisms of other ideal and existing politeiai. The second paragraph of Politics 1 (1252a9-17, cf. 1253b15-23) describes a view against which Aristotle will spend the rest of the book arguing, namely, that the expertises of the politikos (statesman), king, household-manager and master of a slave are one and the same expertise, politikê (the art of politics). This is a claim argued for in Plato's Statesman (258d-59e), and Aristotle argues against it to show that there is something distinctive, and distinctively valuable, about practicing politikê, so that the political life is a good life for human beings. By contrast, Plato's Republic treats political expertise as a byproduct of the theoretical wisdom of philosophers, and political rule as a burden that falls on philosophers as a consequence (346e-47d, 519d-21b). Aristotle argues that there is a difference between the expertises of the politikos, the king, the householder and the master, on the grounds that in each case the character of