Well folks, we've looked carefully at social and gender relations in China and India recently, but I'm an equal opportunity critic (as we all should be) so now it's time to shift our attention to the Mediterranean region. Surprisingly to many, Aristotle's writings give some of the best insights into Greek and later Roman society. In the documents that I would like you to read, Aristotle describes some widely accepted Greek principles of social organization that also came to be current in Rome. He is obviously intent on justifying a social hierarchy, so while reading, ask yourself: How does he divide functions of society? Why does he prefer that manual labor (at least in agriculture) be done by slaves? The idea of hierarchy for Aristotle also extends to the family, with clear divisions between men and women. Now that we've been across Eurasia, were these ideas unusual in classical civilizations? Does Aristotle's definition of the purposes of family organization differ from those in China and India? Of course, social definitions existed in all the classical civilizations. As you're reading his words, also ask yourself how the kinds of divisions Aristotle describes are comparable to social structures elsewhere in the classical world (for example, India's caste system). As you will also see in the following documents, Aristotle was a strong defender of most Athenian political principles, including a degree of democracy as the Athenians defined it. As you are reading his political thoughts, ask yourself: How do his arguments for social and family hierarchy relate to Greek politics?First, I would like you to read a selection from Aristotle's The Politics by clicking on the following link (The Politics) [you only have to read pages 419-420].
Second, I would like you to read a selection from Aristotle's Economics by clicking on the following link (Economics) [you only have to read page 1, section 3 - page 4, section 5].
After reading both documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: Why does Aristotle find slavery necessary? How does the discussion of slavery or the use of foreigners mesh with Athenian political values? Would Aristotle and Pericles have argued about these issues in your opinion? Are Aristotle's gender values patriarchal? How do they compare with the gender system of Sparta, described earlier by Lycurgus? How do Greek gender values compare with those of classical India and China? Were they more or less severe in your opinion? How do Aristotle's view on social inequality compare with Confucian and Hindu views? What are the key similarities? How do all these social theories compare with characteristic modern discussions on the reasons and justifications for social inequality? Your thoughts...
30 comments:
in a way aristotle probably supports what is best for him. he obviously wasn't a slave, so to him slavery just seemed like the easiest thing. he wasn't at the bottom of the social scale, so to him social classes seemed alright. he was a man, so he thought men should be in charge. he might have just been looking out for himself.
I agree with Alina. It's probably what was just natural to him, and it was always there so he had never seen anything different. If someone were to say slavery was wrong he would not support it probably because he had a slave or two, because thats what was always shown to him. It's reasonable, but i still think its ridiculous and he needs to look at a different point, how was that slave feeling?? if he were a slave would he have enjoyed it?? Or maybe he thinks they're slaves because the like working?? I don't know, it all seems sort of bizarre!
I understand why Aristotle wanted to use slavery. I think it was because it was probably the easiest way to get people to do all the hard labor that no one wanted to do, but I'm not saying that slavery is O.K. I'm just saying that back then it was probably easy use if you could find or make slaves. However, I do not understand why Aristotle wanted to discriminate women. Personally I think Aristotle was stupid for hating on women because he had no reason, he just made up a bunch of Pholosophy's(rumors) about women.
I also agree that he may have been looking out for himself though he does need to put himself in others shoes and take their say so and combine his words with theirs.
I believe Aristotle believed in slavery becuse he saw that it was the most productive way for a society to work. Think about it this was before machines and to farm vast plots to feed a large population slavery was considered the best way, in a whole Aristotle was seeing what was best for the city not the people. Being that he wasn't a slave also influenced his decision, but he was looking for what was best for the society.
I can understand where Aristotle is coming from because when you aren't actually having to be put through the horrible act, you can't fully understand how bad and corrupt it is. I can only image how bad slavery is but I don't know how bad it exactly was because I never was a slave. Aristotle thought slavery was a good thing because they helped non-slaves by a great deal. I don't agree with him and he should step back and view it from a slave and then see what he thinks about slavery. I also totally disagree with his crazy ideas of women. I think that it goes to show that he was a little out there.
well, like ms. venick said...he was a man. Of course he felt superior because he knew that he could do things in society that women couldn't do. I mean, if you are able to go out and hang with your friends til 11PM...but your little brother/sister can only stay out to 9PM, of course you are going to feel superior! You have rights that someone else does not have, and you know that it feels good! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this Patriarchal society was right, or Aristotle for that matter, I'm just saying that if you were in his shoes, you would understand how he feels. Now, ladies, if for one year, you could make America a Matriarchal society, don't tell me that you wouldn't! hahaha if you had that chance, you know that you would exploit it in an instant!!!! I'm not trying to point any fingers, and I'm not agreeing with Aristotle, but I mean, come on, look at it from Aristotle's perspective!
Using slaves probably would have been the easiest and cheapest way to get hard labor done. If he was wealthy, and I'm assuming he was, he probably had a good amount of slaves in his household. That would have influenced his philosophy on hard labor.
I think his views of women were much like classical India. In India, the wives worshipped their husbands as gods. Aristotle said that men were in all ways superior to women (which is SO messed up) and he makes men seem like gods while he looked down on women. The only thing that women could do was have children, but apparently that wasn't good enough for him...
Aristotle, yeah I think he wanted what was easiest for him and slavery was the easiest thing. Cheap labor and easy money with the least amount of work for him. Aristotle probably didn't see much of anyone as human. He cared for himself and his benefit. He's selfish but we can;t really blame him too much because we all want an easy life but his view was a bit of the extreme.
The only thing Aristotle does is trash women..like men took advantage of their power, women would too, so it just makes it equal. It doesn't mean that men would be any better. Women might think emotionally and maybe not do as bad to men, like men did to them. If u wanna say something about the politics thing with how a women thinks with her heart and not with her brain,ha..not most of the women during modern times..even if its a little true. Guys..the ones who cheat on their wives might have gotten a second chance by their wives because they r emotional, so some guys might still be alive because of their wives being emotional..ok..sorry..way off topic..
Just to sum it up..Aristotle was a man, and so he thought like a man,(not trying be mean to guys here) that maybe he should just use his imagination to try and mess up women reputation!! who gave him that right! and people actually believed him..oh yeah..cause they were men, so ofcourse they have to make themselves seem better than women! What would u expect from them, their main God was a womanizer and probably didn't care a bit about women.
I agree with the other people about the whole slavery thing..
sorry about the rage here, not very happy with this Aristotle dude.
I think that it was just easier to aristotle to use slavery because that's all he really knew and was only looking out for himself.
However, I can't see why he discriminated against women. It's ridiculous and uncalled for. He was just a classical "me man, you woman" kind of guy.
yes, i agree with you all about how he would get to those conclusions, but really. how long has the saying "walk in someone els's shoes" been around? yes slavery would have been the easyer rout(for the wealthy) but when is the easy way out pretty much EVER turn out the way you want it too? you'd think he would figure this stuff out...i thought he was supposed to be smart!
hmmm. now when i think of him, one word will pop into my head, and i probably will stop listening to the person when he's mentioned.... selfish...maybe lazy too. i mean, he wrote only the common view of the wealthy, added a few fancy words, and did nothing els! ugh! ppl like that make me just...mad!!!
and his view on women.. mm-mm-mmm. i mean really. again, he had no support, just stating the typicall wealthy male thoughts and put it on paper. i'm gunna try not to explode, like i usually do on this topic, but really! why are men superior? why? you're stronger, woopty doo. we're smarter(if u'd allow us to be educated). why does one sex have to be better? we're of the same freakin race!!who cares who is male, and who is female. it shouldn't matter!!!
u no, these articles are starting to make me mad. oh, and btw, srry if i've singled anyone out when i go on a rampage about this stuff...and srry i keep "giving you death stares" in class mr. prill. i don't mean to, i'm just really touchy on this stuff.
Of course slavery seemed natural to Aristotle. He was brought up to believe that slavery was perfectly ok, even normal. And this is just another example of another patriarchal society.
Haha Mr.Prill must have rubbed off on David. "Ms.Venick" ;)
all good thoughts, but let's go further with this here. i would like to see you all compare aristotle's views to hindu and confucian views on the same subject.
In a way, Aristotle gave some rights to women and valued them saying that man could not survive without women. He does share some patriarchal views as well though as in when he mentions how a woman's job is to nourish and take care of the children where as it is a man's job to educate the children. It seemed as though he did not value the intelligence or ability to teach of women.
Aristotles views with hindu and confucius views are similar cause they all are super patriarchical.
I think the way aristotle thinks of women is outrageous. i literally wanna reach through history and show him how far women have come in life. i mean seriously. he was a wealthy upper class man so all he was concerned with was his class. he didn't care about the bottom classses. everyone thinks he is such a great person when i don't believe so. he believed in slavery, which i think is a horrible horrible thing. ahh middle school teachers.....mr. prill you arre so right. yet still the part that a woman are a defective form of a man. ahh this makes me sooooo angry. grrr!!!
Wow, how many people can find THAT logical of an approach to how to destribute land? I don't understand a lot of what he says though. He tells how slaves should be seen as to avoid rebellion but he doesn't say why they houlc work on the land. I also don't understand the whole thing about the gods and the land. I just had a really hard time with The Politics. Could someone help me out?
I understand Aristotle's views of slavery, because at the time it was the easiest and most efficient way of getting labor done. His ideas portray his views on the need for a social structure, and his lack of thought beyond the span of the higher classed. Meaning he doesnt take into account the effects that slavery will have on the slaves and their families. On a different note, his other views on Patriarchal societies mirror that of Hindu beliefs and Confucius beliefs, with man being seen as more superior.
It is very interesting how in The Politics, you can literally watch his wheels turning as the document was written. The thought behind making certain pieces of land for temples meant that he was a pious man of sorts. I also believe that his way of thinking was incredibly different from Confucius. Confucius does not make many, if any references to slavery since China had no need for them. Also Confucius was designing a system that would bring a chaotic society back to a stable system. Aristotle was probably not writing these documents for this purpose so their objectives and setup will be totally different
I think that Aristotle's views are very similar to Hindu's beliefs. They both put men above all first off because the people who thought about these views were obviously men so they had the say so and the power to declare these ideas. Hindu was a little more harsh and aristotle at least said that women cannot perform her duties without men and men cannot complete their duties without women. But he means more in the way of producing a child. Pretty dumb. but anyways he also says you should enjoy it as well especially when he was talkin about letting the masters basically rape their slaves. Hindu uses kama to express the main idea as well. Confucianism was different from aristotle's views. Confucian or at least Chinas ideas said that peasants should be respected more because a bigger source of income is brought in by them. and with the lower classes respected more they might be more content with doing there work. Aristotle said that slaves should work, be punished, and be fed. The way he put it he said that you cant punish them and make them work without feeding them because they wont work well. To me it sounds like he is telling us how it should be like that but since it would decrease work efficiency they cant treat the slaves like that, How cold-hearted. Good thing that time is over. It sounds really rough back then.
i think aristotle believed in slavery cuz he thought that this was the easiest way to get rid of his stress on labor and such. so he got slaves so he didnt have to worry about it
I think in terms of patriarchal society, Aristotle's idea was very similar to the Hindus and the Confucians because i think it is very strict stating the strength difference between women and men. He was saying that since women are weaker than men, they cannot work as much as men and how all the things that women have to do is "serving nature." I guess that he is saying that men should control everything in the household because he is the one to protect his family from harm with his strength which is close to the hindus' and the confucians' beliefs. This whole patriarchal thing is based off of agriculture; as the Economic passage states, Aristotle believed that since men can work more than women, there are the dominant sex.
The slavery in Aristotle's ideas sound very unfair(unlike the confucians since China did not have slavery at all); he is just saying that slaves should be slave because , like the women, they did not have much power or choice like the Hindus. However, unlike the Hindus, he also considered how the slaves should be treated and if they should be rewarded with freedom.
I don't agree with Aristotle. I think he had the right idea and thought process but he was to judgmental and too quick to jump to conclusions.
I think that Aristotle was looking out for himself, like many people have mentioned, I also don't see how this worked or why foreigners would come to the Mediterranean knowing that they could be made slaves.
Personally I think Aristotle was thinking of himself and whatever he needed at the time to survive. Do I agree with it NO, but you can't change peoples personal opinions...
Aristotle's views were much like the Hindu religion. Women and peasants weren't the top of the food chain at all. Of course, if one is at the top, you're going to make other people do your dirty work. Aristotle just happened to be one of those types of people. This patriarchal view is one that Aristotle had been used to and probably didn't really think much of it besides it's positive aspects from his viewpoint. Confucianism had more focus on the peasants because they contributed to the greater good through agriculture, so it didn't have as much segregation going on between the men and the slaves and women.
I see a lot of people commenting that Aristotle was "looking out for himself" and "looking for the easiest way out" cause he was never a slave and shouldn't be so rash as to say slavery is necessary. "Oh slavery is bad, man! Everyone should be treated equally...maaan!" Bull crap! Aristotle may not have been a slave but he was not looking out for himself since A.He did not own slaves, so approving them would be no benefit to him in that aspect, and B.He was really looking out for the economy and social classes. Slavery is not a bad thing. Slavery isn't cruel in any way. The only bad or cruel thing is how slaves' masters choose to treat their slaves, and thorughout history people have abused their power to own slaves, cause slavery to be perceived as something wrong and horrible. Slaves don't have to be treated bad for it to be called slavery, and as Aristotle stated at the end of 420, slaves should be allowed recompense for their hardwork through the opportunity at freedom. So Aristotle did believe slaves deserved something in return like any other hardworking Roman, and although in the Oeconomica, he mentions punishment as a part of a slaves' rights, punishment is necessary to enforce authority and keep them working, after all, nobody feels strong under a weak leader. Also, I don't know what Aristotle thought, but from what I can tell, he wasn't a cruel slavemaster and had no intention to put down slaves and "use an easier way out." In fact, although I think Aristotle didn't need to waste his time spelling it out for people, some people aren't thinking hard enough, or looking deep enough. Get those neurons in your brain working! Aristotle saw fit to use slaves, and I entirely agree. Rome is a large empire, filled with millions of people. Who is gonna feed those people? Farmers? Who wants to farm? I wanna be a politician...good money, easy job. An architect, always need new aqueducts and trade routes, good money, easier than farming. Who actually wants to work on a farm all day? Not to mention the massive amount of land there is in Rome that needed to be integrated into agriculture. People deciding to farm on their own won't work. Romans didn't have intercontinental trade.They couldn't set up cities throughout their domain. They didn't have microwave food. They had to grow THEIR food on THEIR land. But, nobody reeally likes farming. How will we cover such a massive amount of land for agriculture then? I know, slaves! Slaves could work on large plantations and cover all the extra countryside and provide massive amounts of food for massive amounts of hungry Romans. Slaves were necessary for economy. Aristotle(I'm certain) knew this. He wasn't looking for an easy way out, he was looking at the right way(in?). He was looking for what works, and works well. The only flaw is rebellion. Mistreated slaves mistreated their mistreators! You beat your slaves they'll beat you back. Slavery was good for the economy. It was right for the economy. It was working for the economy. The only two problems were slaves got mistreated, and nothing kept them in their place. [True]Hinduism(The revised Aryan belief system) set in place that you have to do your moral duty(Dharma) and you will be granted admittance into Moksha. Slaves in Roman empire weren't granted salvation by being good slaves. They weren't presuaded by religion, since Rome didn't have a well-placed belief system, just a Greek copyright infringement, which was another flaw. So besides its flaws, slavery still worked, and it worked well. and Aristotle was not out of justification to state that slavery was necessary.
Aristotle though women were the weaker of the two sexes. He does believe that without one, the other is virtually useless. Both are needed to make children, to form a relationship, and to create a mutual association between a man and woman. But at the same time, his mind has been corrupted by his surrounding culture. He staes that mean are the stronger sex for reason that men are courageous, can ward off attacks, are strong for outdoor activities and can pursue promising careers, while women are made to be less strong, and suited for life focused around home, instead of "exposure", and therefore weaker than men. However, since women aren't given the chance to pursue the same things as men can in society, and without the chance, it wouldn't be conceivable to work to be capable for those tasks, it is observed by Aristotle that women can't because they are not capable, as opposed to they're not given a chance, and see no reason to try. (This isn't the same type of opinionated corruption as the slavery issue, I am not contradicting myself, and still stand firm by my comments on the slavery issue.)
mr. gaultney, although this is a well thought out comment, i must disagree. when i judge something as either a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, i look at the final results. in reality, slavery has never at any time proven itself to be a successful system. even if success is temporary, in the end it creates more problems than good. sure, the real problem in the carrying out of the system. but even in cases where slaves are handled more benevolently, (1) it still has a negative degenerative societal effect, and (2) the benevolent treatment usually gives way to something more harsh.
True, I was giving a complicated outlook on my opinion, that in the case of Roman society, slavery was definitely an effective way to maintain economic stability and to feed the population, but it ended up having very negative effects on the future. As people became lazier and started using slavery more frequently and harshly, as it was in Roman society. I think slavery can be implemented more passively without making it ineffective, but it wasn't at all...
Post a Comment