Aristotle's reasoning for why he believed the Greek polis was superior to other forms of association can be found in Book 1.2 of his teachings in Politics. It contains an analysis of the individual components that make up a polis, the family and the village, and why these associations alone are unable to satisfy the needs of the individual. This has to do with Aristotle's concept of happiness; since all human beings strive for happiness and the final goal of the polis is a “good life,” he considers the polis “the final and perfect association” (Aristotle 281). What is interesting, however, is that Aristotle teaches that all associations are based on unions between those who cannot exist without each other (Aristotle 280), yet his idea of ​​perfect association is self-sustaining. In this article I will argue that Book 1.2 of Politics shows that the idea of ​​the polis was unique at the time, because it did not depend on kinship structure, but was instead based on the concepts of self-sufficiency and justice. It can also tell us about the main forms of government of the time, as well as the Greek attitude towards barbarians and the importance of the family unit. To do this, I will examine why Aristotle rejects other forms of political associations that are not based on the polis system. I will also examine why Aristotle believed that the polis was superior to the associations that comprise it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The first form of political association that Aristotle rejects is one without naturally dominant elements. At the beginning of this chapter, Aristotle states that “first of all there must necessarily be a union or pair of those who cannot exist without each other” (Aristotle 280). This “first of all” is important, because it tells us that this is what he believes to be the most basic principle of what constitutes a polis, in his attempt to break down and analyze its individual components. He also states that there must be a union between the naturally ruling element and the naturally governed element (Aristotle 280). We can therefore assume that the polis is made up of unions of these two types. Aristotle uses barbarians as an example of people who are unable to form these two unions. Since he states that barbarians do not have a dominant order, this must mean that, at most, the only union they are capable of forming is the first species. I am able to follow only the most basic principle of associations. We know that these barbarians must be able to achieve the first, most elementary, union because it involves marriage, regarding which Aristotle states that "among the barbarians...the conjugal union thus becomes a union of a woman who is a slave with a male who is also a slave” (Aristotle 280). Therefore, the first method of political association that Aristotle rejects is that of barbarians who have no naturally dominant element because everyone would be considered slaves without some sort of dominant order. From this we can deduce that the polis must be different from barbaric groups as they have a sort of dominant order based on the formation of these two unions between male and female and between master and slave. Aristotle not only rejects associations without a dominant element, but also rejects monarchies. To understand why he does this, it is important to examine what Aristotle considers the constituent elements of the polis: the home or family, and the village. He states that “families are always governed monarchically… just as villages, when they are branches of the family, are similarly governed by virtue of kinship among theirmembers” (Aristotle 281). He describes this kinship as “primitive,” indicating his belief that monarchical structures found in families and villages are insufficient forms of association. Aristotle uses the example of barbarians again, this time stating that the people of the barbarian world are still ruled by kings (Aristotle 281). At the beginning of the chapter, he had written that barbarians “have no ruling element” (Aristotle 280), but a king would certainly be considered a ruler. This shows that Aristotle considered both associations without a ruling order and those under a centralized ruler to be barbaric, even if they have a very different structure. Based on this, we can learn that the polis had to have some kind of ruling order without monarchy, so individuals living in the polis could avoid following the path of the barbarians. His use of barbarians as an example on two separate occasions may also tell us something about Greek cultural attitudes during this time period. For Aristotle to argue that people should not do what barbarians do (e.g. have no ruling elements or be ruled by a king), they must have some sort of negative connotation associated with barbarians. In this way, when Aristotle uses them as examples, they will force his audience not to follow the same path. We can also learn a lot about Greek family structure from Aristotle's discussion of kinship and association. He states that the polis is based on an association of villages, and that villages are offshoots of families (Aristotle 281). Since everything comes from the family, and the family is necessary to satisfy “recurring daily needs” (Aristotle 280), it can be deduced that a strong family structure existed at the time. Regarding the village, Aristotle notes that some have called village members “infants of the same milk” or “sons and sons' sons” (Aristotle 280). This shows that not only did close ties exist between the family, but also within the village. Since the village is based on the interaction between different family kinship structures, we can see that the family was a political unit in its own right in ancient Greece and surrounding societies. Even the idea of ​​polis is very different from that of empire. Aristotle argued that individuals are destined to live in a polis. Without it, they cannot achieve self-sufficiency (Aristotle 281). He states that «the isolated man – who cannot share the benefits of political association, or does not need to share because he is already self-sufficient – ​​is not part of the polis, and must therefore be “either a beast or a god” (Aristotle 282). It is interesting to note that many individuals in association with each other form a self-sufficient polis, yet a single polis alone is isolated, just like the single individual. As Aristotle states earlier, it is natural for smaller associations of families and villages to form monarchical structures through kinship. Since individuals naturally form kinship ties, we can assume that individual poleis, composed of these same individuals, would naturally want to form ties with other poleis. We know that Aristotle believes that human associations lead to the formation of poleis, yet Aristotle never mentions what happens if several self-sustaining poleis try to associate with each other. Since Aristotle argues that these poleis are already self-sufficient, it would not be necessary for them to interact with each other. This is contrary to the idea of ​​an empire with a single ruler, which is composed of multiple regions, all part of a whole, under a centralized system of government. Another concept that makes the idea of ​​polis unique is that it is based on the idea of ​​what is just and unjust. According to Aristotle, man is different from animals inhow much man “alone possesses the perception of good and evil, of right and wrong, and other similar qualities; and it is association in these things that constitutes a family and a polis” (Aristotle 282). He also states that “justice belongs to the polis” (Aristotle 282). This is significant because the word “belongs” indicates that justice is a crucial part of the polis: the two go hand in hand. Aristotle describes as barbarians those who live under monarchical rule or none at all. If everyone were under the rule of a single king, the concept of justice could be distorted in favor of the king. If no dominant element existed, the concept of justice would not exist at all, because everyone is a slave. Aristotle's idea of ​​nature helps him explain why he considered the polis superior to its constituent elements, the house and the village. He believed that “every polis exists by nature, having in itself the same quality as previous associations,” which also exist by nature (Aristotle 281). It is important to note here exactly what Aristotle means by “nature,” otherwise there will be a contradiction between the claim that earlier associations exist by nature and the later claim that the polis is the nature of those same associations (Aristotle 281). This contradiction can be reconciled by considering the word “nature” to convey two different meanings. When he states that every polis exists by nature, he means that the polis is formed through the natural association of human beings in families, villages and, ultimately, in the polis. All these associations exist by nature, so why does Aristotle consider the polis the best? This has to do with the second meaning of “nature,” which he calls “the nature of things.” He defines it as the “end or consummation” of a thing (Aristotle 281). Although the polis arose from smaller associations of families and villages, Aristotle considers it the nature, or “purpose,” of all forms of association. For him, self-sufficiency is the ultimate goal of associations and it is the polis that achieves this goal. This is why Aristotle underlines the superiority of the polis over other forms of association. His audience, however, certainly needed convincing that the polis was superior. If this were not the case, Aristotle would not need to argue in favor of the polis and against other types of associations. For example, he states that, “while [the polis] grows for the sake of mere life, it exists for the sake of a good life” (Aristotle 281). By “growing,” Aristotle refers to the growth from the basic constituent elements of the polis, starting from unions between individuals, up to the family, the village and, finally, the polis. This growth is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency, and it is the existence of the polis that achieves this goal. Self-sufficiency is the “best” (Aristotle 281), and therefore so is the polis. Aristotle considers self-sufficiency to be fundamental to living a good life and, therefore, this becomes his most important point about the polis. The audience for whom his teachings were intended must not have all understood the superiority of the polis, which is why to convince them he emphasized the distinction between life and the "good" life and the concept of self-sufficiency. Please note: This is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Based on what Aristotle wrote in Book 1.2 of Politics, we can see that the concept of polis was unique at the time, due to its self-sufficient character and the important role played by justice. In his argument we can learn about other forms of government popular at the time: those without dominant elements, monarchies and empires. These are the ones against.