structure for 'Political Theory'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 1. A People / c. A unified people

[how many individuals count as a single people]

37 ideas
The community (of villages) becomes a city when it is totally self-sufficient [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: The community, coming from several villages, when it is complete, is the city, once it has already reached (one might almost say) the limit of total self-sufficiency.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1252b27)
     A reaction: I suppose a group of villages might be self-sufficient, provided water supply and defences were secure. In a city it is all within easy reach. Each village can't have a full set of specialists.
A community must share a common view of good and justice [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: It is sharing a common view in good and evil, justice and injustice, that makes a household and a state.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1253a17)
     A reaction: This idea comes up against the modern idea of pluralism (e.g. in Isaiah Berlin), which is inevitable in huge states with a lot of migration.
People who are anti-social or wholly self-sufficient are no part of a city [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Anyone who cannot live in a community with others, or who does not need to because of his self-sufficiency, is no part of a city, so that he is either a wild beast or a god.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1253a27)
     A reaction: Civil people should try hard to accommodate those who are anti-social. I'm not convinced that there is anyone who is wholly self-sufficient.
A city can't become entirely one, because its very nature is to be a multitude [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Socrates adopts the hypothesis that it is best for a city to be as far as possible entirely one. …But it is evident that the more a city becomes one the less of a city it will be. For a city is in its nature a sort of multitude.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1261a14)
     A reaction: [He is referring to Plato's Republic] He says if a city wholly unifies it becomes like a household, and then a human being, rather than a city. A very interesting commitment to diversity in a city, based on its essential nature. Athens was very diverse.
Friendship is the best good for cities, because it reduces factions [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: We think friendship is the greatest good for cities, since this way people are least likely to engage in faction.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1262b07)
     A reaction: Earlier philosophers were deeply worried about 'faction', but we now accept the gangs of secretive hoodlums called political parties. I suspect the old view was right, but it's a bit late now. You can't engineer friendships (can you?).
A community should all share to some extent in something like land or food [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Communities should have some one thing that is common and the same for all the members, whether they share in it equally or unequally - for example, food, a quantity of territory, or something else of this sort.
     From: Aristotle (Politics [c.332 BCE], 1328a27)
     A reaction: In modern societies vast numbers of people own no land at all, and common land has dwindled. Maybe it is roads, buses and trains?
We are citizens of the universe, and principal parts of it [Epictetus]
     Full Idea: You are a citizen of the universe, and a part of it; and no subservient, but a principal part of it.
     From: Epictetus (The Discourses [c.56], 2.10.03)
     A reaction: He got this view from Diogenes of Sinope, one of his heroes. What community you are a part of seems to be a choice as much as a fact. Am I British or a European?
The ideal for human preservation is unanimity among people [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: Man can wish for nothing more helpful to the preservation of his being than that all should so agree in all things that the minds and bodies of all would compose, as it were, one mind and one body.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], IV Pr 18S)
     A reaction: There has never been a more glorious vision of a unified people than this, which epitomises Enlightenment optimism. It may be a little on the optimistic side. We might at least hope that rational education encourages the convergence.
Peoples are created by individuals, not by nature, and only distinguished by language and law [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: Nature certainly does not create peoples, individuals do, and individuals are only separated into nations by differences of language, law and morality.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670], 17.26)
     A reaction: Quite wrong, I think. How did languages evolve if there were not already distinct peoples? Do ants and bees only form into colonies by individual choice? All social contract theories seem to make Spinoza's assumption.
People are drawn into society by needs, shared fears, pleasure, and knowledge [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: To his sense of weakness, man would soon add his needs. Encouraged by indications that their fear was shared, men would soon come together. They would feel the pleasure (and sexual attraction) of their own species. Knowledge then draws them into society.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02)
     A reaction: He doesn't make the point about 'knowledge' very clear.
People are guided by a multitude of influences, from which the spirit of a nation emerges [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: Men are ruled by many causes: climate, religion, laws, maxims of government, examples drawn from the pasts, customs, manners. Out of them is formed the general spirit of a nation.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 19.04)
     A reaction: This is one step away from Rousseau's general will, which is an attempt to give precise expression to this 'spirit of a nation'.
Rousseau assumes that laws need a people united by custom and tradition [Rousseau, by Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: Rousseau assumes that there should already be bonds of custom and tradition uniting a people before it is fit to receive laws.
     From: report of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract (tr Cress) [1762]) by Jonathan Wolff - An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) 3 'Rousseau'
     A reaction: In unusual circumstances, such as the arrival of a large population at a new colony, it might be that the laws would create the missing customs and traditions.
The act of becoming 'a people' is the real foundation of society [Rousseau]
     Full Idea: The act by which people become 'a people' is the real foundation of society.
     From: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract (tr Cress) [1762], I.5)
     A reaction: The difficulty with many older countries is that it is impossible to identify such an act. Mythologies are created to fictionalise such acts; in Britain we refer back to King Alfred, and to Magna Carta. I suspect 1660 is the key year.
To overcome obstacles, people must unite their forces into a single unified power [Rousseau]
     Full Idea: Men have no other means of maintaining themselves but to form by aggregation a sum of forces that could gain the upper hand over the resistance of obstacles, so that their forces are directed by means of a single moving power and made to act in concert.
     From: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract (tr Cress) [1762], I.6)
     A reaction: I prefer the Aristotelian view, that men are naturally gregarious and social (like bees and ants), so this act of solidarity in superfluous. A human people is only broken up by violence or disaster, like kicking over an ants' nest.
Human nature changes among a people, into a moral and partial existence [Rousseau]
     Full Idea: The establisher of a people is in a position to change human nature, to transform each individual into a part of a larger whole from which the individual receives his life and being, to substitute a partial and moral existence for natural independence.
     From: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract (tr Cress) [1762], II.07)
     A reaction: The 'partial' part is obvious, in the compromises of society, but he says we only become moral in a people, and even more so when that people constitute a state. In the state of nature, morality seems to be unneeded, rather than absent.
The soul of the people is an organisation of its members which produces an essential unity [Hegel]
     Full Idea: The soul [of the people] exists only insofar as it is an organisation of its members, which - by taking itself together in its simple unity - produce the soul. Thus the people is one individuality in its essence.
     From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Introduction to the Philosophy of History [1840], 3)
     A reaction: Hegel is seen (e.g. by Charles Taylor) as the ancestor of a rather attractive communitarianism, but I think Popper is more accurate in seeing him as the first stage of modern totalitarianism. The people seen as one individual terrifies me.
The family is the first basis of the state, but estates are a necessary second [Hegel]
     Full Idea: While the family is the primary basis of the state, the estates are second. The latter are of special importance, because private persons, despite their selfishness, must have recourse to others.
     From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Elements of the Philosophy of Right [1821], 201 add)
     A reaction: He mentions agriculture as an estate. The implication is that interactions between families requires state institutions, but in simpler societies families can obviously interact and help one another directly. He wants the state to be indispensable.
Hegel's Absolute Spirit is the union of human rational activity at a moment, and whatever that sustains [Hegel, by Eldridge]
     Full Idea: We may take Hegel's Absolute Spirit to be the union of collective, human rational activity at a historical moment with its proper object, the forms of social and individual life that the rational activity is devoted to understanding and sustaining.
     From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (works [1812]) by Richard Eldridge - G.W.F. Hegel (aesthetics) 1
     A reaction: From this formulation it sounds as if the whole human race might have momentary union, but presumably it is more local 'peoples' that can exhibit this.
The people are just individuals, and only present themselves as united to foreigners [Tocqueville]
     Full Idea: The people in themselves are only individuals; and the special reason why they need to be united under one government is that they may appear to advantage before foreigners.
     From: Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America (abr Renshaw) [1840], 1.07)
     A reaction: I take this to be an observation on 1830s America, rather than a universal truth. It fits modern western societies rather well though.
Old tribes always felt an obligation to the earlier generations, and the founders [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Within the original tribal association the living generation always acknowledged a legal obligation towards the earlier generation, and in particular towards the earliest.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (On the Genealogy of Morals [1887], II.§19)
     A reaction: This is still a factor in modern politics, though the people remember are either military heroes or the great figures of a particular political movement. We remember the big artists and personalities, but don't feel obligated to them.
An enduring people needs its own individual values [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: No people could live without evaluating; but if it wishes to maintain itself it must not evaluate as its neighbour evaluates.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.16)
     A reaction: Political philosophers say plenty about a 'people', but little about what unifies them, or about what keeps one people distinct from another. Most people's are proud of their local values.
Gradually loyalty to a creed increased, which could even outweigh nationality [Russell]
     Full Idea: At a later stage in the development of civilization, a new kind of loyalty began to be developed, based on identity of creed. …Its military strength was displayed in Islam …and later loyalities of Catholics or Protestants could outweigh nationality.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1)
     A reaction: [compressed] The only examples of creed loyalty that come to mind are religious. With increased migration in the modern world the phenomenon of divided loyalties has grown. Can a political theory cope with divided loyalties?
Increasingly war expands communities, and unifies them through fear [Russell]
     Full Idea: From early days down to modern times war has been the chief engine in enlarging the size of communities, and fear has increasingly replaced tribal solidarity as a source of social cohesion.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1)
     A reaction: It is a feature of modern nationalism to try to generate fear of various outsiders, even in times of peace. Most of us despise such things, but the underlying desire for greater national unity is not unworthy. What enemies would a world state have?
In early societies the leaders needed cohesion, but the rest just had to obey [Russell]
     Full Idea: In historical societies such as ancient Egypt only a minority at the top of the social scale - the king, the aristocracy and the priests - needed any psychological mechanism towards social cohesion; all the rest merely obeyed.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 2)
     A reaction: This is why even now I take obedience to be a key right-wing virtue, though it is usually reinforced through national myths and distorted proganda. Quasi-worship of the leader also seems to be a major ingredient. Obedience unifies armies.
The need for order stands above all others, and is understood via the other needs [Weil]
     Full Idea: Order is the first need of all; it evens stands above all needs properly so-called. To be able to conceive it we must know what the other needs are.
     From: Simone Weil (The Need for Roots [1943], I 'Order')
     A reaction: This may be music to conservative ears, but you should examine Weil's other ideas to see what she has in mind.
The biology of societies: kin selection, parenting, mating; status, territory, contracts [Wilson,EO]
     Full Idea: Societies are ordered around six sociobiological principles: kin selection; parental investment; mating strategy; status; territorial expansion and defence; contractual agreement.
     From: Edmund O. Wilson (Consilience [1998], 19 'Intro'), quoted by Peter Watson - Convergence
     A reaction: I'm not sure I trust such a precise list. Personally I'm in society because I'm too frightend to drop out. So where is 'defence'? Still, I like attempts at assembling such a list. Politics needs grounding.
A community must consist of singular persons, with nothing in common [Derrida, by Glendinning]
     Full Idea: In Derrida's modal reversal (where the only possible forgiveness is forgiving the unforgivable), the only possible community is the impossible community, which is a 'community of singularities' without anything in common.
     From: report of Jacques Derrida (later work [1980]) by Simon Glendinning - Derrida: A Very Short Introduction 7
     A reaction: Since this seems to go beyond multiculturalism, I can only see it as hyper-liberalism - that isolated individuals have an absolute status. Sounds like Nozick, but Derrida saw himself as a non-Marxist left-winger.
Can there be democratic friendship without us all becoming identical? [Derrida, by Glendinning]
     Full Idea: The question is whether it is possible to think of a politics of democratic friendship that could free itself from the terrifying threat of homogenization.
     From: report of Jacques Derrida (later work [1980]) by Simon Glendinning - Derrida: A Very Short Introduction 7
     A reaction: Being terrified of people becoming all the same links Derrida to existentialist individualism. Is he just a linguistic existentialist, trying to free us from the tyranny of linguistic uniformity?
Rawls rejected cosmopolitanism because it doesn't respect the autonomy of 'peoples' [Rawls, by Shorten]
     Full Idea: Rawls rejected the cosmopolitan extension of his theory because he thought it failed to respect the political autonomy of 'peoples', which was his term of art for societies or political communities.
     From: report of John Rawls (The Law of Peoples [1999], p.115-8) by Andrew Shorten - Contemporary Political Theory 09
     A reaction: Interesting that you might well start with the concept of 'a people', prior to some sort of social contract, but end up with rather alarming conflicts or indifference between rival peoples. Why should my people help in the famine next door?
Society is alienating if it lacks our values, and its values repel us [Kekes]
     Full Idea: We feel estranged from our society if the values we prize are not available, and if we do not want to live by the available values.
     From: John Kekes (The Human Condition [2010], 04.4)
     A reaction: There are two pictures here, for a monolithic culture, and for pluralism. For example, the values of Islam are fairly available in the Christian/atheist UK - but not sharia law. Pluralism can embrace a huge array of moderate values, but not extremes?
Collective rationality is individuals doing their best, assuming others all do the same [Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: We need to distinguish between individual and collective rationality. Collective rationality is what is best for each individual, on the assumption that everyone else will act the same way.
     From: Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 1 'Hobbes')
     A reaction: Wolff is surmising what lies behind Hobbes's Laws of Nature (which concern collective rationality). The Prisoner's Dilemma is the dramatisation of this distinction. I would making the teaching of the distinction compulsory in schools.
Should love be the first virtue of a society, as it is of the family? [Wolff,J]
     Full Idea: Love, or at least affection, not justice, is the first virtue of the family. Should mutual affection also be the first virtue of social and political institutions?
     From: Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 6 'Transcending')
     A reaction: Surely this ideal should be at the heart of any society, no matter how far away from the ideal it is pushed by events and failures of character? I take 'respect' to be the form of love we feel for strangers.
World government needs a shared global identity [Oksala]
     Full Idea: Critics have argued that a global 'demos' would require a shared global identity.
     From: Johanna Oksala (Political Philosophy: all that matters [2013], Ch.9 'Epi')
     A reaction: The great divisions are religion and language. The great unifiers are sport, arts and entertainment, plus basic human needs like food, health and housing. The reply is that there cannot be identity without differences, so global democracy is out.
Anti-colonial movements usually invoke the right of their 'people' to self-determination [Swift]
     Full Idea: Nationalist movements seeking to throw off the yoke of colonial rule are often motivated by a sense that their 'people' have the right to self-determination.
     From: Adam Swift (Political Philosophy (3rd ed) [2014], 5 'Intrinsic 1')
     A reaction: In 2017, Basques, Catalans and Kurds come to mind. The whole of Africa was an example of this c.1950-80, but there was uncertainty about states, tribes and language groups.
If a group is bound by gossip, the natural size is 150 people [Harari]
     Full Idea: Sociological research has shown that the maximum 'natural' size of a group bound by gossip is about 150 individuals.
     From: Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens: brief history of humankind [2014], 02 'Legend')
     A reaction: On the other hand, most of us can learn the names of a group of about 450. Maybe the 'known' group and the 'gossip' group are equally significant. Not much use for a modern state, but of interest to communitarians.
In a democracy, which 'people' are included in the decision process? [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: In any democratic state, who are 'the people' who get to rule themselves? That is, who gets to participate in the public decision process, and who is excluded?
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 5 'What is')
     A reaction: In the modern world this may be clear-cut when a democracy gets started, but people move around so much more that every democracy is faced with new types of residents. Then there is age, criminality, mental health...
People often have greater attachment to ethnic or tribal groups than to the state [Tuckness/Wolf]
     Full Idea: Some states have a number of different ethnic or tribal groups. Often these attachments are much stronger than the attachment people feel towards the state.
     From: Tuckness,A/Wolf,C (This is Political Philosophy [2017], 6 'Membership')
     A reaction: In Britain I fine people torn between attachments to the UK and to England or Wales or Scotland or NI. Attachments to football clubs are much stronger than most patriotism. Or attachment to a particular locality. Does it matter?