Discussion Starter: Aristotle's Politics

In Book III, Aristotle outlines his criteria for citizenship stating that “ those who contribute most to this sort of community have a larger share in the city state…” (Aristotle, 81). To Aristotle, a city state is “not sharing a common location” (81) and therefore citizenship is limited to those within the community who contribute to the justice and virtue of the city. However, those who are most suited to acquire citizenship, according to Aristotle, are “the well-born, the free, and the rich”(87) which puts into question how Aristotle views the poor and what their contribution to his society is.

Aristotle’s tone towards poor people in Book III gears towards distaste, but in realizing that they would make up some portion of his society accepts their merit as contributing to the labor work force. However, he limits their participation in government stating that they’re unfit to do so because “...their lack of justice and practical wisdom” (83). He purposefully excludes part of the population favoring the educated, virtuous group to run the city. Aristotle attempts to create a self sufficient society but with his focus solely on the well being and prosperity of the citizens. Poor people are viewed as burdensome but also recognizes that their complete exclusion from government would “be cause for alarm” (83) later rationalizing that since the whole of the city would consist of citizens and poor people that the best decision can be made regarding electing officials than if this was decided by an individual or a small group.  Aristotle’s elitist tone also disregards to mention the idea of social mobility in his city. He, like Plato, categorizes people into social classes but never addresses the idea of why a person would be unable, or unfit, to move up the social strata. Aristotle alienates the lower class of society and only includes them in the conversation of politics out of fear of them revolting and for their necessary workforce.

Aristotle’s ignores poor people and seems only to provide a false illusion of inclusion into government to prevent any dissent. In America there is the hope of the American Dream but is this also an illusion of inclusion? The promise of social mobility is often never fulfilled for Americans living from the lower classes and their roles are often forgotten within American society. Would Aristotle see social mobility as harmful or threatening to the well born people in society? Does America also see social mobility as a threat?