| My topic is an examination of the core concept of Aristotle's political science---the regime: what does he mean by this term, how does he arrive at it, and what are the presuppositions of a regime-centered political science? I try to answer these questions by a careful study of Book III of the Politics. There Aristotle shows that such routine political questions of who does, and does not, deserve to be a citizen, and who should rule, are unavoidably tied up with questions about the identity of the city, and what human type should be honored by the city. The variety of answers to these questions provided by the various groups contending for rule (the poor, the rich, the aristocrats, etc), give rise to the various regimes. Aristotle shows that the claims to rule made by the various groups contain within them a vision of the whole over which the groups wish to rule, and a notion of the common good that follows from that vision. The ruling group's conception of justice seeps into the parts of the city and integrates them in a certain way, and this integration is both psychic and structural, since the regime affects not just the external actions of the citizens, but also their inner-disposition, their soul. This comprehensive integration is what makes the regime the fundamental political fact, the key to understanding the nature of a political order. Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy also begins from opposed groups in political life, but understands them not by examining what they say, but by looking beyond their speeches to a particular conception of the necessities they face. Machiavelli finds that these groups have essentially selfish and irreconcilable goals, and shows us how these selfish goals can be aligned to achieve a limited common good consisting of political stability, order and liberty. The dissertation ends by comparing and contrasting Aristotle and Machiavelli's differing analysis of the opposing groups in political life and suggests reasons for preferring the Aristotelian approach. |
