Aristotle on Tyranny

(The following essay was originally published in three parts at the Montana Classical College substack. You can find them here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3)

Introduction

A central piece of political philosophy within the Western tradition is Aristotle’s aptly named Politics. Its impact owes as much to the structured and analytical approach of Aristotle as it does to the breadth of topics covered, and it offers both a fascinating look into the political life of the Greeks and many insights that can be of value for the modern student of politics. Perhaps the first truly scientific study of politics, the political situation of Greece during the time of Aristotle was ideal for inquiry into political science. The Greeks were an eminently political people: they took great interest in political matters and experimented with many different kinds of constitutions; divided, yet possessing a common culture, religion and heritage. As such, it was possible for Aristotle to analyze political developments from a perspective where factors other than the political system itself had minimal impact.

One of the more interesting features of the Politics is that Aristotle does not just discuss the nature of the ideal or best constitution, but also the nature of dysfunctional constitutions and how they can be maintained. This is especially noteworthy since, through this, he is moving away from the purely ethical or philosophical dimension of politics and into the practical realm of political organization and power dynamics. It is here, I think, that Aristotle is most insightful for the modern reader. In this essay, we will look at the Aristotelian analysis of tyranny and of tyrannical methods of governing and attempt to put them into a perspective that can be useful for the contemporary student.

The aim of politics

Before we can begin, we need to consider what Aristotle sees as the aim of politics. For Aristotle, political science is a continuation of ethics, in that both strive towards the good. The political association, being the most sovereign association, must therefore aim at the highest good in an ethical sense. Of importance here is that the Aristotelian concept of ethics – and indeed, the bulk of his Nicomachean Ethics – focuses on the nature and development of virtue. Ethics, for Aristotle, is not a matter of following a set of prescribed rules, but rather the dispositions which one ought to develop in order to achieve the highest good, which he terms eudaimonia.

It is important to note here that it is not for everyone to seek the highest human good, according to Aristotle. Each must seek what is good in accordance with his nature, but not every nature is suited for the highest good. Therefore, Aristotle asserts that the goodness of the master is different from that of the slave; the goodness of the husband different from the goodness of the wife; and the goodness of the parent different from the goodness of the child. Furthermore, the slave seeks his goodness through the master, the wife through the husband and the child through the parent. Thus, it is the free adult man, the master of the household, who must seek the highest good – consequently, for Aristotle, it is he who must seek political association. In this way, Aristotle excludes slaves, women and children from the polis – they live in it, but they are not a part of it.

“The truth is that we cannot include as citizens all who are necessary to the city’s existence.” 1277b33

In the ideal case, even those who work for a wage are excluded from membership in the polis, as Aristotle sees leisure as a necessity for partaking both in political association and in the highest good. Foreigners, likewise, are excluded, and Aristotle notes that it is only cities with a dearth of good men who accept foreigners as citizens.

“Now the best constitution is that under which the city can attain the greatest happiness; and that, as we have already stated, * cannot exist without goodness. Upon these principles it clearly follows that in a city with the best possible constitution – a city which has for its members people who are absolutely just, rather than ones who are merely just in relation to some particular standard – the citizens must not live the life of mechanics or shopkeepers, which is ignoble and inimical to goodness. Nor can those who are to be citizens engage in farming: leisure is a necessity, both for growth in goodness and for the pursuit of political activities.” 1328b24

(With mechanics, Aristotle means manual laborers, day laborers and such as work for a wage.)

“But the policy of extending citizenship so widely is [generally] due to a dearth of genuine citizens; and it is only shortage of population which produces such legislation. When they have sufficient numbers they gradually disqualify such people: first sons of a slave father or slave mother are disqualified; then those who are born of a citizen mother but an alien father; and finally citizenship is confined to those who are of citizen parentage on both sides.” 1278a13

We can now define the core group of the ideal polis – the native adult freemen who possess leisure. Since this is the ideal, any deviation from it must be seen as moving away from the ideal. Therefore, we could define as subversive anything that undermines the power and sovereignty of the core group within their polis.

What is tyranny?

Moving on, we need to understand what Aristotle means when he speaks of tyranny. In the Aristotelian schema, constitutions (or forms of government) are classified as being one of six primary types, with some overlaps and variations. First, he divides the constitutions by the number of people who hold political office – one, few or many. Second, he divides each of these into an ideal and a perverted type. The difference between the two is that the ideal type is governed in accordance with what is best for the polity as a whole, while the perverted is governed only to the benefit of a subsection of the polity. This gives us the three pairs of constitution in the Aristotelian schema – monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy and constitutional government/democracy, the former in the pair being the ideal type and the latter the perverted.

We should note here that, following the reasoning in the previous section, the polity is itself an exclusive category. Thus, an ideal constitution allows for all who are capable to achieve the highest good, while the perverted constitution does not. Concerning those who are excluded from the polity, they must seek their good through the members of the polity.

We can see that in this schema, a tyranny is akin to what is today called a dictatorship. However, Aristotle makes a few interesting comments regarding tyranny and its relationship to other constitutions.

“Democracy quarrels with tyranny in the same sort of way as, says Hesiod, ‘potter quarrels with potter’,* for extreme democracy is, of course, a form of tyranny.” 1312a39

“The methods applied in extreme democracies are thus all to be found in tyrannies.” 1313b29

“Tyranny has obviously the vices both of oligarchy and democracy.” 1311a8

Aristotle seems to see the tyrannical mode of government as being not merely confined to the tyranny as strictly defined but rather as present in oligarchies and democracies as well. He also mentions “methods” and “vices” as being the connecting factor. Finally we can note that all three of the governments here mentioned as sharing certain characteristics are perverted forms of government – that is to say, government for the benefit of a subsection of the polity. We can therefore integrate this into our conception of tyranny and define it as a government, regardless of structure, that uses a certain methodology to maintain power for its own benefit and to the detriment of the polity. Since Aristotle considers the ideal polity as being composed of the freemen who possess leisure, we can further define a tyranny as a government which seeks to undermine or subvert the authority of the freemen, essentially reducing them within their own polis to the status of women and slaves.

Having a clear definition of tyranny, we can now move on to consider the methodology of the tyrant.

The methods of tyranny

Aristotle notes that tyrants can preserve themselves if they succeed in securing three objectives – to break the spirit of the people, to sow mutual distrust and to render them incapable of action.

“Their first end and aim is to break the spirit of their subjects. They know that a poor-spirited man will never plot against anybody.”

“Their second aim is to breed mutual distrust. Tyranny is never overthrown until people can begin to trust one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are always at war with the good. They feel that good men are dangerous to their authority, not only because they think it shame to be governed despotically but also because of their loyalty to themselves and to others and because of their refusal to betray one another or anybody else.”

“The third and last aim of tyrants is to make their subjects incapable of action. Nobody attempts the impossible. Nobody, therefore, will attempt the overthrow of tyranny, when all are incapable of action.” 1314a12

What Aristotle describes here are the three cornerstones of effective political organization and leadership. For a political association to be effective it must first of all have spiritedness, or thumos. It must have confidence in its own judgment, in its ability to defeat its enemies and in its ability to rule. It must possess a capacity for righteous anger, a willingness to fight, to take risks – in short, it must possess political will, a will to power. Second, it must be able to mobilize a larger body of people. Numbers act as a force multiplier, but for any form of large-scale organization to be possible there must exist bonds of trust and loyalty. The members of the association must be able to count on each other. An association full of infighting, petty squabbles and betrayal will achieve nothing. Finally, an association must be able to act when the opportunities present themselves. Every political triumph comes about through decisive action, something that is only possible when the other two factors are in place.

How does a tyrant achieve these ends? Aristotle notes that there are a variety of methods frequently employed by tyrants to achieve them. One of the chief methods, which Aristotle attributes to Periander of Corinth, is the removal of competent men who can threaten the position of the tyrant.

“the ‘lopping off’ of outstanding men, and the removal of men of spirit.” 1313a34

“It is a habit of tyrants to never like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence.” 1313b29

In the story told by Aristotle, Thrasybulus sent a messenger to Periander to ask of him how best to maintain control of his state. Periander, rather than answering the messenger, took him out into a field and ordered his men to cut off the ears of the corn, thereby making them all the same length. This the messenger relayed to Thrasybulus, who understood that to maintain his power, he must remove all men who by virtue of their spiritedness and excellence would be capable of making a move against him. The tyrant, therefore, surrounds himself with men who are either too cowardly or too incompetent to wrest his position from him.

“to prohibit common meals, clubs, education, and anything of a like character – or, in other words, to adopt a defensive attitude against everything likely to produce the two qualities of mutual confidence and high spirit;”

“to forbid societies for cultural purposes, and any gathering of a similar character, and to use every means for making every subject as much of a stranger as possible to every other (since mutual acquaintance creates mutual confidence);” 1313a34

Aristotle continues by suggesting that the tyrant ought to interfere in any organization on the part of the citizens which serves to heighten their spirits and build a sense of camaraderie. Other than the ones mentioned by Aristotle, one could add gyms, scouting movements, religious societies or college fraternities, among many others, to the list of things which the tyrant must forbid. We could also extend this line of reasoning by saying that the tyrant need not necessarily forbid these types of organizations outright, but can instead opt to subvert or undermine them in other ways. One such way can be through surveillance.

“to require every resident in the city to be constantly appearing in public, and constantly hanging about the palace gates. (In this way they are least likely to escape notice in what they do and they will come to have a low opinion of themselves as a result of being continually in the position of slaves.)”

“to ensure that nothing which any of his subjects says or does escapes his notice. This entails a secret police, like the female spies employed at Syracuse, or like the eavesdroppers sent by the tyrant Hieron to all social and public meetings.” 1313a34

Surveillance of the population entails two things. The first is that people should be out in public as much as possible. In Aristotle’s time, this meant forcing people to appear in public where the tyrant could survey them. In a modern context, where the public space has shifted to digital spaces, this can be achieved through preventing anonymity. Both doxxing and requiring individuals to identify or verify themselves before entering digital spaces can be used by a modern tyrant as ways of achieving this first task of surveillance. The general trend of internet usage moving away from anonymity and towards public displays of one’s real identity – Facebook being the prime example of this trend – could likewise be used by a tyrant for control of the population. The second aspect of surveillance is to form a secret police and to place spies or eavesdroppers into private spaces to monitor speech and behavior. In a modern context, we see the first part of this in the form of the intelligence agency and the formation of the security state – the activities of which extend beyond the scope of this essay. The second part can be achieved through injecting ideology into schooling or education, thereby ensuring that families, companies, academic institutions and so forth have some of their positions filled by individuals who have been indoctrinated to support the interests of the regime. The media can also be utilized by a tyrant to investigate and publish information on individuals and organizations which work against the regime, or to push an ideology-laden agenda.

Of special interest is how Aristotle implies that the act of surveillance undermines the confidence of people by reducing them to the status of slaves. A parallel can be drawn here to the concept of owned space as detailed by Bronze Age Pervert. When people are forced to inhabit a space that is monitored and controlled by an outside force, it undermines their sense of personal power and the belief in the efficacy of their actions. They begin to adopt the behavior of slaves, and to see themselves as such, which is what the tyrant desires.

It is also interesting to note how Aristotle mentions the specifically female spies utilized at Syracuse – we will have reason to return to the role of women for the tyrant soon enough.

Next, Aristotle suggests that a tyrant should undermine the social trust of the city.

“sow mutual distrust and foster discord between friend and friend, between people and notables; between one section of the rich and another.” 1313a34

This is the age-old strategy of divide et impera, and in a modern context this can be further extended to include fostering animosity and strife between ethnic and racial groups, between men and women and between different sexual identities (which can be crafted by the modern tyrant for this purpose). Likewise, the media establishment can be used to push controversial and divisive issues that pit different parts of the population against each other, or by inflaming already existing divisions.

Finally, Aristotle says that the tyrant ought to impoverish his subjects and notes two reasons for this.

“to impoverish his subjects  - partly to prevent them from having the means for maintaining a civic guard; partly to keep them so busy with their daily tasks that they have no time for plotting.” 1313a34

The first reason for why the tyrant is benefited by this course of action is that it prevents his subjects from maintaining the arms and training necessary to stand against him. In the Classical Greek city-state, the military was financed by the citizenry – every man had to procure the arms and armor that he would use, and wealthy citizens also took part in financing ships. Thus, an impoverished populace would not possess any of the military hardware needed to wage war against the tyrant and his men. Modern states, however, do not depend on the populace for direct financing in this way– rather, they depend on taxation. Modern states instead generally restrict possession of weapons in the first place rendering this a moot point. However, impoverishment does serve to further decrease the independence of the populace vis-à-vis the regime. Raising the cost of living, keeping wages constant or promoting renting and subscription services instead of owning property all serve to negatively influence the financial independence of the population, thus making them easier to control.

The second reason that Aristotle mentions is to keep the population busy with their day-to-day matters so that they do not have time to organize against the tyrant. This point is especially important given that Aristotle considers leisure a necessity both for the pursuit of goodness and for political pursuits, as we have seen previously.

Thus, by impoverishing his subjects and forcing them to keep busy with excessive amounts of work in order to get by, the tyrant not only prevents political organization by his subjects but likewise prevents them from achieving goodness or excellence. Through work the subject population can be rendered servile and politically impotent. In a modern context, we can extend this line of reasoning to include the formation and growth of a precariat and a gig economy. Uncertain forms of employment requiring frequent job searches or gig hunting ensures that time not spent working for a wage is spent looking for work, in turn ensuring that the workers not only stay impoverished but also without leisure.

We come now to a number of interesting comments that Aristotle makes regarding tyranny which are of special interest to us. We begin by looking at the role of women and slaves within a tyranny, which Aristotle states is the same as in democracies.

“[Tyrannies and democracies] both encourage feminine influence in the family, in the hope that wives will tell tales of their husbands; and for a similar reason they are both indulgent to slaves. Slaves and women are not likely to plot against tyrants: indeed, as they prosper under them, they are bound to look with favour on tyrannies and democracies alike.” 1313b29

Here, we see Aristotle make the argument yet again that women can be used by the tyrant to act as spies or informants. Of special note is his claim that tyrants encourage “feminine influence”. It is not simply a matter of the tyrant recruiting or bribing women – what he depends on is the women gaining influence within their families and by so doing undermining the authority of the men of the family in a way that the tyrant hopes to benefit from. Notice also how the tyrant uses slaves for a similar purpose.

As we saw in the beginning of this essay, the Aristotelian conception of the city excludes slaves and women from full participation in the state. We can therefore interpret Aristotle’s statements regarding the usage of women and slaves by the tyrant as utilizing what would today be called “marginalized groups” to undermine and subvert the authority of the core political group – that being the freemen. We can extend Aristotle’s reasoning here to include amongst women and slaves any group that can be made to stand in some opposition to the hegemonic body of the freemen.

This line of reasoning naturally extends to foreigners and immigrants.

“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.” 1313b29

The immigrant is of special note to other “marginalized groups” due to a comment Aristotle makes later in the Politics regarding division of labor within the state.

“The class which farms it should ideally, and if we can choose at will, be slaves – but slaves not drawn from a single stock, or from stocks of a spirited temperament. This will at once secure the advantage of a good supply of labour and eliminate any danger of revolutionary designs.” 1330a23

We see therefore that the natural development of the tyrant’s practices, both generally and with regard to foreigners in particular, will see the citizenry reduced to a state of slavery. In the case of foreigners, the already demoralized and atomized citizenry will be further broken up by the presence of the foreigners, preventing the citizens from finding a rallying point in their shared heritage and culture.

Having now listed the methods of governing which Aristotle associates with tyranny, we can now review whether our initial definition of tyranny was correct – whether it really is a system of governance which has among its chief aims to subvert and undermine the independence and authority of the core group of freemen. And as we’ve seen, both the aims of the tyrant and the methods he employs are in line with our definition. Everything the tyrant does, he does with the aim of breaking down the spirit of the freemen until they are unable to prevent their own enslavement and emasculation. And as the aim of political association is the creation of the conditions which allow for the highest type of life and good which can be attained by the core group, we likewise see that tyranny is the condition instead where the core group suffers the worst possible degradation.

What remains for us now is to consider how a tyranny can be brought down.

How to oppose a tyranny

Having analyzed the nature, aims and methods of tyranny, we are left with the question of what can be done to combat it. From the descriptions given by Aristotle above, it would seem as if the state of tyranny would be impossible to overcome once a people has found itself in it. And indeed, the permanent subjection of the people is the aim of the tyrant. But as Aristotle is considering the ways in which a tyranny may be maintained – even though it is a supremely perverted and therefore dysfunctional form of government – it is natural that he would likewise consider the sources of its downfall.

Just as the tyrant aims to attack the spirit of a people, Aristotle sees the spirit as the source of that which can bring the downfall of the tyrant. According to Aristotle, contempt is the chief cause of a tyrant’s downfall.

“There are two causes which are mostly responsible for attacks on tyrannies: these are hatred and contempt. Of these hatred is something all tyrants are bound to arouse; but contempt is often the cause by which tyrannies are actually overthrown.” 1312b17

The defining characteristic of contempt, in contrast to hatred and anger, is that it comes from a position of strength. The tyrant who appears weak, perverted, unworthy or ridiculous will provoke attacks from those who think themselves better, stronger or better able to rule.

“Contempt, of a sort, is also the motive of those who think that they can seize power: they are ready to strike because they feel themselves strong, and able, in virtue of their strength, to despise any risks.” 1311b40

Contempt is often engendered when a ruler’s claim to power is hollow or worthless. People will be more willing to challenge the would-be tyrant if they think he is overreaching, acting as if he is in charge when he is not.

“Kings of this type often incur the contempt of their subjects; they lack the power of tyrants, having merely an office of honour, but they nevertheless abuse and injure [their subjects].” 1312b38

This brings us to another point that Bronze Age Pervert makes on how humor, pranking and ridicule are the strongest weapons today against the contemporary globalist regime. While Aristotle sees contempt as something that arises from the actions of the tyrant himself, he does not consider the possibility that contempt may be engendered against the tyrant through organized campaigns of ridicule. This is, in essence, what Bronze Age Pervert suggests as a political strategy. The effect of such a strategy, should it be successfully implemented, would be to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the tyrant. People would be less likely to obey the orders of a ruler they find ridiculous, making their claim to power much less secure. Likewise, the ruler will find himself spending a great deal of effort just defending his authority against challengers and trying to maintain his reputation and image, making it that much harder for him to rule effectively. Furthermore, the ruler held in contempt will be less likely to attract competent individuals to his side, as such individuals will be more likely to spurn him outright or make attempts at overthrowing him.

Anger and hatred are two other emotions which, if aroused in the populace, may lead them to attack the tyrant. Aristotle differentiates the two in this way: anger is a volatile emotion, hatred a cold and calculating one. As such, the two serve different purposes. Anger will lead men to more reckless attacks, which can in some cases by very useful.

“Anger, indeed, is often a more effective stimulus; angry men will attack with more tenacity, because their passions prevent them from stopping to calculate.” 1312b17

However, without an opening that can be exploited through rash action, it is better to foment hatred against the tyrant, as hateful men will conspire and plan more soberly, and can therefore expect to lay more complex plans or courses of action.

“Hatred can stop to calculate; you can hate your enemy without feeling pain. Anger is inseparable from pain; and pain makes calculation difficult.” 1312b17

As useful as contempt, anger and hatred are, they lead nowhere unless there are actually men who can challenge the tyrant and take the power from him. Aristotle claims that it is military men, especially those given high positions by the tyrant, who are most capable of challenging the tyrant since they possess the necessary qualities of courage, hardiness and power to be successful in such an endeavor.

“But those rebellions caused in this way generally proceed from those who combine a hardy temper with a position of military honour in the service of their sovereign. Courage armed with power turns into hardihood; and it is this combination of courage and power which leads people to rebel, in the confidence of easy victory.” 1312a15

However, in modern bureaucratic states, power depends less on direct military might than it did in the states that Aristotle was familiar with. While military men have a clear advantage in being able to withstand direct force from the tyrant, in modern states it would be possible for high-ranking members of the various power centers to make similar challenges to the ruler. Thus, to overthrow the modern state it would be necessary not just to undermine the authority of the current ruler through ridicule, but also to either recruit individuals within the power structure or train individuals to take such positions.  If this can be accomplished, a network of individuals within the power structure would form who, acting in concert with each other, could oust a weakened ruler.

Finally, it is worth bringing forth one more point by Bronze Age Pervert. Most of what the tyrant does is to undermine the natural community of the freemen which form the core group of the polis. Thus, the tyrant can – and indeed, must – be fought by the recreation of this community of freemen. This echoes the emphasis that the Bronze Age Pervert puts on male friendship. Without a conscious attempt of the men to withstand the methods of the tyrant and to preserve their will and ability to act as a group to protect their position within the polis, the tyrant cannot be deposed.

Conclusion

If we accept Aristotle’s conception of the aim of politics, we must conclude that all political conflict at its core is a struggle for attaining that ultimate good of political life, a good that is fundamentally exclusive. Not all in a society may achieve it – indeed, not all are even capable of it, if we are to follow Aristotle’s reasoning. Tyranny, then, is the attempt by one part of the polity to keep for itself this political good through a set of methods aimed at completely degrading the opposition to the status of slaves. Opposition to tyranny, it must follow, is the struggle by the opposing party to reassert themselves and reclaim the political good. This struggle is fundamental to politics, and in this regard the nature of politics remains unchanged in the modern era. What has changed is the battlefield – the three intertwined forces of technology, media and the bureaucratic security state form the new arena in which the political struggle is fought. It has been my intention to show how, despite these changes, the Aristotelian analysis of politics and of tyranny still holds. In a time of near-universal political confusion and hysteria, the sobering perspectives of the ancients can help us make sense of the contemporary political situation.

References

Aristotle. (1995). Politics. Reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Translation by Sir Ernest Barker. Please note that references made are to the relevant paragraph and not to the exact line.

Bronze Age Pervert. (2018). Bronze Age Mindset. Self-published.