Philosophical arguments of Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE) often worked by pointing out two extremes and advocating for a balanced middle ground between the two. For example, in terms of virtue, Aristotle praised the virtuous quality of sincerity, and contrastingly criticized people who were too humble (as humility may undermine a person’s sincere worth) as well as arrogant boastfulness (as arrogance does not lead to sincere self-analysis). Aristotle took a similar stance on society and politics. He noted that in governance there will always be tension between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor and that there needed to be a strong presence of people in the middle to form a calming bridge between the two antagonistic sides. In a sense, he advocated for the need of a strong middle class, albeit his notion of a “Middle Class” is different than the modern day concept. After all, Aristotle lived in the 4th century BCE, a time with very different societal, economic and class structures than modern times. Despite these cultural differences, Aristotle’s viewpoint on a middle class is worth reading. Speaking on the poor, wealthy and the middle class, as well as the best government representation ratios of these classes, Aristotle wrote:
“Where the number of the poor is sufficiently large to exceed the given ratio, there democracy will depend on the type of people which has the numerical superiority in each case…Where, on the other hand, the rich and notable people have a greater qualitative superiority than quantitative inferiority, there an oligarchy naturally arises, and once again its type will depend on the degree of superiority in those who form the oligarchical body. But at all times a legislator ought to endeavour to include the middle people in the constitution…Whenever the middle people outweigh a combination of the two extremes, or even one only, then there is a good chance of permanence for the constitution. There is no danger of rich and poor making common cause against them; for neither will want to be slaves to the other, and if they are looking for a constitution more acceptable to both, they will not find any better than this. Their mistrust of each other would make it impossible for them to accept alternation in office. But in all places the mediator is best trusted by the parties, and the one in the middle is a mediator” (Aristotle, The Politics, Bekker number 1296b).
In short, Aristotle wrote that constitutions and government structures needed to balance the wealth and influence of the well-off in a stable way with the numerical superiority of the poorer portions of society. If wealthy individuals were able to monopolize too much power and influence, an oligarchy could arise. Yet, contrastingly, extreme power in the hands of the poorest people could also lead to dangerous outcomes. In Aristotle’s opinion, tyrannical oligarchies and rabble-rousing revolutionaries were not a recipe for a stable state. Therefore, he favored a strong middle class of moderates. These middlemen of society would be able to be allies and mediators of both the rich and the poor, keeping the two juxtaposed extremes from scratching at each other’s throats. If the middle class could be empowered and fulfill this stabilizing role, then Aristotle believed that such a society’s constitution, and the government formed from it, would have a chance at long-term survivability.
Written by C. Keith Hansley
Picture Attribution: (Antique Greek costumes by Friedrich Hottenroth (c. 19th century), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and the Smithsonian).
Sources:
- The Politics by Aristotle, translated by T. A. Sinclair and revised by T. J. Saunders. London: Penguin Classics, 1962, 1992.
