Aristotle’s Nichomachaean Ethics is famous for its idea of the Golden Mean. Aristotle writes, “It is the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess . . .” (2.2). Consequently, he argues that excellence is “a state concerned with a choice, lying in a mean relative to us” (2.6). It is important to note that not every characteristic could be understood this way. For example, “spite, shamelessness, envy” all are bad in themselves (ibid.). He also understood that it was not always easy to determine the mean. For example, in regards to giving and spending money, “to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right aim, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy . . .” (2.9). All that said, Aristotle believed that the Golden Mean was an important way to understand what an excellent or virtuous individual would look like.
After reading carefully through Aristotle’s Politics, his politics seem to me to be a politics of the Golden Mean. Aristotle quotes Phocylides: “Many things are best in the mean; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city” (4.11). The Golden Mean, according to Aristotle, could help us understand what the excellent or virtuous state would look like. In fact, this concept may be more useful in politics than in individual ethics. Here I will demonstrate this briefly from Aristotle’s Politics, applying it to a variety of political issues along the way.
The basic question Aristotle sets forth for himself in Politics is this: “Our purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal of life” (2.1). In other words, what is the best possible state?
Aristotle begins his discussion in the abstract. However, he recognizes that the ideal is not likely to be possible. So, he says, we ought to
inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of excellence which is above ordinary persons, nor an education which is exceptionally favoured by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal state which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which states in general can attain (4.11).
Aristotle wants us to consider what is really going to work best for most people. This is important to ask because “political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical” (4.1).
One way in which Aristotle thinks of a mean in politics is in the size of the state. He believes the size of the state should be not too large because it becomes unwieldy, and not too small, for it does not have sufficient power. He says, “Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purpose of life, and can be taken in at a single view” (7.4). This is the mean when it comes to the size of a state.
Second, he emphasizes the need for a middle class. Those states are most likely to be “to be well-administered in which the middle class is large” (4.11). He explains that “a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes” (4.11). This is not simply based on picking something in the middle. There are reasons why the middle class makes the best states. What happens is that “they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against” and so “they pass through life safely” (4.11). The middle classes have the least desire for the riches of others, and others have the least desire for their riches. In addition, when there is an oligarchy or democracy, if they can attach the more powerful side to the middle class, then it will be stable.
This last point indicates that Aristotle is not thinking here of one type of government. A variety of types of governments can be stable and well-administered, and they all also have their problems and downsides. Aristotle says, “Democrats say that justice is that to which the majority agree, oligarchs that to which the wealthier class agree; in their opinion the decision should be given according to the amount of property. In both principles, there is some inequality and injustice” (6.2). Each form has its perversion to which it tends: “kingship, tyranny; aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy.” Democracy is a tyranny that has only in view the needy, “none of them the common good of all” (3.7). Consequently, there should be a mean in the elements. He says, “The more perfect the admixture of the political elements, the more lasting will be the constitution” (4.12). He suggests that combining elements of various governments will increase stability: “they are nearer the truth who combine many forms; for the constitution is better which is made up of more numerous elements” (2.6). Thus, Aristotle suggests a mean in the form government, not one form in particular but a variety of forms balancing each other in one government.
For similar reasons, Aristotle warns against allowing anyone in the state to get too much power. “Especially should the laws provide against any one having too much power, whether derived from friends or money; if he has, he should be sent clean out of the country” (5.8). Aristotle would probably have supported anti-trust laws. However, he suggests that there are ways to keep people from getting too much power up front. A state can have opposite elements control the government, or it can work to increase the middle class (5.8).
Aristotle’s approach to the poor also follows a mean. Gentle treatment of the poor is important but not easy (4.13). First, he says that demagogues should not be put in control of distributions to the poor: “Where there are revenues the demagogues should not be allowed after their manner to distribute the surplus . . .” (6.6). He also warns that the poor will always want more aid, but that aid is often useless in helping them and is like “water poured into a leaky cask” (6.6). This does not mean that rulers should give up on helping the poor. Instead,
the true friend of the people should see that they are not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures, therefore, should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and, as this is equally the interest of all cases, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or farming (6.6).
In other words, the poor need a basic safety net, and they need opportunities for advancement. This is an approach that is a mean between vying to get their support through benefits and ignoring their needs.
In regard to property, Aristotle considers at length whether property should be common. Here is how he defines the mean and a balanced perspective: “I do not think that property ought to be common, as some maintain, but only that by friendly consent there should be a common use of it; and that no citizen should be in want of subsistence” (7.10). He explains why property should belong to particular people: “Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because everyone will be attending to his own business” (2.5). This is a basic principle that governs much of his thinking: “For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual” (2.3). On the other hand, he does not believe that there should be no sense in which property is common. He believes that a society will run best where this is a “friendly consent” to use it in common.
All of these examples illustrate Aristotle’s approach to politics. He believed that excellence could be destroyed by excess and defect. Consequently, he applies the idea of the Golden Mean to the political realm.
The cases he describes here have significant application to our own day and our own politics. In our polarized environment, there is great pressure to simply adopt one side or another. The lens of the Golden Mean can provide for us another way of approaching these issues that gets us past that polarization. It seems to me that Aristotle would say that the polarization tends to compel us toward excess or defect in one position or another. He would probably suggest that there is a mean (though not necessarily easy to find) between both positions that needs to be carefully considered. The lens of the Golden Mean may open up to us perspectives and options that we had not seen before.