Political thinkers throughout history have long debated the nature of civilization. Two notable political theorists, Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes, thought separated by thousands of years, thought and wrote about the origin and purpose of civilization and the effect and contribution different entities, such as the household and individual, have on political order. Their respective masterpieces, Aristotle's The Politics and Hobbes' Leviathan , outline their differing views on civilization and details its structure's relevancy to politics and government.
Aristotle called the highest form of human civilization a city. A city, he argued, is the highest “partnership” of human beings. Various other partnerships, such as the relationship between a man and woman and master and slave, exist within the city. The city is the highest partnership, the combination of other partnerships. Because all relationships or partnerships exist for and are in fact formed to achieve some common good, then the city, by definition, “aims at the most authoritative good of all” ( Politics Ch. 1). The city, being a combination of partnerships pursing common good, is the first full partnership to secure complete self-sufficiency for all its citizens.
Hobbes refers to his idea of the pinnacle of civilization as a commonwealth, or the Leviathan. Hobbes rejects Aristotle's idea of multiple partnerships forming the larger city. He writes that the commonwealth is “the multitude so united in one Person” (Hobbes Ch. 17). The state of nature for human beings is constant war, with violent death being the fear of every person and the pursuit of peace the ultimate goal of life. The commonwealth, then, is the means to this end: all citizens are willing to give their inherent right to themselves to one man or assembly of men in order to secure peace and to avoid violent death.
As stated above, Aristotle wrote that the objective of the city is to pursue the ultimate common good. The blacksmith and the carpenter live in the city to benefit from each other's presence: the blacksmith makes tools, which the carpenter uses to construct buildings and other things for the blacksmith and others. Both benefit from the presence of the farmer, who uses the products of both to grow and reap crops. Households are formed to fulfill daily needs, and several of these forming a village cater to some nondaily needs. The city, however, with all partnerships combined, “exists for the sake of living well” (Aristotle Ch. 2). By entering into a partnership with everyone else in the city, all citizens benefit, and a common good is achieved. In contrast, the purpose of Hobbes' commonwealth is not to provide good for anyone. In the state of nature, all citizens have the right to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. The formation of the commonwealth is a preventive measure, and not a beneficial undertaking. If all citizens give up their right to defend themselves, all are more likely to avoid death, and a relative peace is secured.
In Aristotle's view, the political partnership is the overreaching consequence of the household partnership. Households are composed as the natural partnership, instituted for the “needs of daily life,” and consists of multiple partnerships, including master with slave and man with children. Multiple households, then, band together in the city to form the political partnership: household with household and the ruler with the ruled. Aristotle draws a distinction, however, between the ruler of a household and a ruler of a city. He says that some make the claim that the rulers of both are equal in talent and power, and by default claim that a large household is equal to a small city. Aristotle argues that this is an erroneous position; the purpose of the partnership and of those below it reveal the nature of the partnership, and in turn the character of the respective rulers. Hobbes only slightly mentions the idea of a household having political ramifications. He wrote that men first lived in small families only to better “robbe and spoyle [sic] one another” (Hobbes Ch. 17). Both thinkers, however, agree on one basic concept concerning the household in the political realm. Both view the larger facets of civilization, such as cities or kingdoms, as enlarged versions of the family. Families, or households, are formed for various reasons, and they grow and band with other families to form one large household, or parnership: the city or commonwealth. While they agree on this fundamental idea, their reasons for this belief again differ. Aristotle maintains that the large families come together through kin and form cities to live better, while Hobbes argues that families grow larger and contract with others to protect themselves from war.
The individual, in Aristotle's view, is by nature meant to be in association with others. He is naturally a social animal and will, for sake of existence, band together with other human beings and form a partnership. The individual has his place in society, as each individual is born into or enters into various partnerships, and these partnerships, being instituted for the sake of living well, are the basis for and in fact necessitate the formation of cities, for the same reasons. The individual is therefore a vital part of the city as a whole, for each has his or her part in the many partnerships that constitute a city. If the individual were suppressed or belittled, it would hamper the effectiveness of the partnerships and the common good would suffer.
