Since this is a theoretical discussion and not an analysis of empirical data, Aristotle now leaves that part of the subject and turns to consider the ideal state itself. He opens with one of his now familiar generalizations, incidentally reminding us that a polis is something in accordance with nature. He draws a distinction between a part of an organism and, as he puts it, a ‘without which not’, a ‘sine qua non’, which, though indispensable, need not be a part in the strict sense. The list of products and activities in the third and fourth paragraphs includes those both of the citizens (genuinely ‘parts’ of the state), and of slaves, craftsmen, foreigners etc. (mere ‘sine qua nons’).
Once again we have it starkly brought home to us just how exclusive is Aristotle’s view of membership of the state, and how his teleology colours his whole treatment of this question. The state is ‘for’ happiness and the good life, which is the full use of all our distinctively human capacities; some occupations – notably handicraft and trading – preclude such use; therefore traders and craftsmen, and a fortiori slaves, cannot be members (‘parts’) of the state: they are in the service of those who are (i.e. citizens). That craftsmen and traders are essential to the state does not affect the issue, as Aristotle is keen to point out. It is hardly enough to dismiss this doctrine as exploded metaphysics buttressing class-prejudice: Aristotle poses, in his own terms, problems that are still with us. For example, can a man with some menial and grindingly repetitive job lay claim to social and political wisdom entitling him to a say in public affairs? Aristotle would say ‘no’, but the answer ‘yes’ may on examination be found to depend on assumptions about merit, virtue, judgement, and the good life, which are just as arbitrary as his.
1328a21 Just as, in the case of any other compound object that exists in nature, those things without which the whole would not exist are not ‘parts’ of that compound, so too we must not list as parts of a state the indispensable conditions of its existence; nor must we treat in that manner any other form of community1 that makes up something single in kind – because all the members,1 irrespective of whether their degree of participation is equal or unequal, necessarily have some one single identical thing in common,1 e.g. food-supply, an extent of territory, or the like. But whenever one thing is a means and another an end, there can be no other thing in common between them than this – that the one acts, the other is acted upon. Take any tool and consider it along with its users in relation to the work which they produce, for example a house and its builder. There is nothing in common between house and builder, but the builder’s skill is a means towards building a house. 1328a33 Hence a state needs to own property, but the property is no part of the state, even though many parts of the property are living creatures.2 A state is an association of similar persons whose aim is the best life possible. What is best is happiness, and to be happy is an active exercise of virtue and a complete employment of it. It so happens that some can get a share of happiness, while others can get little or none. Here then we clearly have the reason for the existence of different kinds and varieties of states and the plurality of constitutions. Different sets of people seek their happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different lives and different constitutions.
1328b2 We must also ask how many are those things without which there can be no states. (We include what we call ‘parts’ of the state, because their presence too in the list3 is essential.) Let us therefore make a count of all the functions, for that will show the answer. They concern (a) food, (b) skills (for life requires many tools), (c) arms. Arms are included because the members of the association must carry them even among themselves, both for internal government in the event of disobedience and to repel attempts at wrongdoing coming from outside, (d) A good supply of money, too, is required both for military and for internal needs. Then (e, though it might have been put first) religion, responsibility for which we call a priesthood; and, most essential of all, (f) a method of arriving at decisions about matters of expedience and justice as between one person and another.
1328b15 These then are the essential functions; every state, we may say, has need of them. For a state is not a chance agglomeration but, we repeat, a body of men which is self-sufficient for the purposes of life; and if any of these six is lacking, it will be impossible for the association concerned to be thoroughly self-sufficient. It is therefore essential, in setting up a state, to make provision for all these operations. So a number of agricultural workers will be needed to supply food; and skilled workmen will be required, and fighting men, and wealthy men, and priests, and judges of what is necessary and expedient.