Between Polis and Empire: Aristotle's Politics

Abstract

<jats:p>Aristotle lived during a period of unprecedented imperial expansionism initiated by the kings of Macedon, but most contemporary political theorists confine his political theorizing to the classical Greek city-state. For many, Aristotle's thought exhibits a parochial Hellenocentric “binary logic” that privileges Greeks over non-Greeks and betrays a xenophobic suspicion of aliens and foreigners. In response to these standard “polis-centric” views, I conjure a different perceptual field—“between polis and empire”—within which to interpret Aristotle's<jats:italic>Politics</jats:italic>. Both theorist and text appear deeply attentive to making present immediate things “coming to be and passing away” in the Hellenic world. Moreover, “between polis and empire,” we can see the<jats:italic>Politics</jats:italic>actually disturbing various hegemonic Greek binary oppositions (Greek/barbarian; citizen/alien; center/periphery), not reinforcing them. Understanding the<jats:italic>Politics</jats:italic>within the context of the transience of the polis invites a new way of reading Aristotle while at the same time providing new possibilities for theorizing problems of postnational citizenship, transnational politics, and empire.</jats:p>

Ecce Romani

“…Mary Dietz begins an important article on empire-and Aristotle-thus: "Empire" is an idea whose time has come in political theory." 59 A turn to Aristotle offers much, as Dietz shows. I would suggest, by way of conclusion, that a turn to the Romans-and the relationship between libertas and imperium-offers much, too.…”

The centrality ofpoliteiafor Aristotle’sPolitics: Aristotle’s continuing significance for social and political science

“…It is rather surprising that Dietz (2012) should miss the role of the politeia in the Politics and its centrality to Aristotle's characterization of political rule. Nowhere in her articles (Dietz, 2012) does she deal with this fundamental concept, which explains what makes the polis a polis and can help us answer the question of how globalization could be political and yet escape the consequences, envisioned by postmodern political thinkers, of a global tyranny produced by a homogenized universal political system.…”

“…Finally, Mary Dietz's 2012 American Political Science Review article symbolizes a recent trend among scholars in political theory to use Aristotle, and especially his Politics, to argue that his text can help us comprehend the political phenomenon of global political rule that is often described in the contemporary literature of this group of scholars as 'Empire' (Dietz, 2012). This concern with 'Empire' is a current trend among postmodern political thinkers, who are turning to the key authors in the history of political thought to understand the perennial nature of political things and thus allowing the groundwork necessary for a possible return to politics as a characteristic domain of human activity -thereby escaping from the reign of global capitalism or global liberalism, which they view as a form of global tyranny.…”

“…This concern with 'Empire' is a current trend among postmodern political thinkers, who are turning to the key authors in the history of political thought to understand the perennial nature of political things and thus allowing the groundwork necessary for a possible return to politics as a characteristic domain of human activity -thereby escaping from the reign of global capitalism or global liberalism, which they view as a form of global tyranny. Dietz (2012) generally does a good job showing how Aristotle's political thought is not confined to the polis and is thus something of the past to be relegated to the departments of history or classics. She makes a strong case that, if one pays attention to Aristotle, one sees that he also addresses the concept of empire -and other forms of political rule as well.…”

“…Dietz's work must be understood within this larger narrative in the thought of postmodern political theorists (see Agamben, 1998;Derrida, 2009Derrida, , 2012Hardt & Negri, 2000; to mention just a few), who fear the political effects of the rise of globalization would be a move towards a unitary, universalized, homogeneous system of rule, a form of global tyranny. 3 Dietz (2012) rightly points to the whole discourse on empire that emerged on the postmodern left after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the backlash against globalization that quickly crystallized in the late 1990s. The renewed interest in empire as a way to understand and confront the political dimensions of globalization clearly found their voice in Hardt and Negri's (2000) book, Empire.…”