The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle's Politics Author(s): Jeremy Waldron Reviewed work(s):

Source: Political Theory, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1995), pp. 563-584 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191901 . Accessed: 20/07/2012 11:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

THE WISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE on 11 SomeReflections Book3,Chapter

ofAristotle's Politics
JEREMYWALDRON University California, of Berkeley

1. INTRODUCTION is in 3 There a passage chapter book ofthe Politics hasnot that been 11, itdeserves modem in given attention the discussionsAristotelian of political article toexaggerate importance is philosophy. aiminthe My the present of a particular it passage'-tolight up in a waythat go far the may beyond of to intentionsitsauthor-in order benefit itsillumination from ofother themes passages and whose for importance theAristotelian project by is, contrast, indisputable. Thepassage have mind Aristotle's I in is to the attemptanswer question heposesabout atthe political of sovereignty beginningchapter 10:
as There alsoa doubt to what tobe the is is in supreme power thestate:-Isitthe multitude? wealthy? the Orthe Or good? the best Or one man? a tyrant? ofthese Or Any alternatives toinvolve seems unpleasant consequences.2

11 After some reviewing ofthese Aristotle consequences, begins chapter by saying there that might some be truth the in principle the that people large at rather the best than few ought beinpower the to in polis. says-andthis He is the I to passage want focus on-thefollowing:
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Thisessay has been improved discussion philosophy by at department seminars theUniversity California Davis and theUniversity OtagoinNewZealand. at of at of I am grateful David CoppandAlanMusgrave these to for invitations. grateful toJill I am also Frank David Gillfor and someearlier discussions these of themes, tothe and editor referees and their ofthis journalfor comments suggestions. helpful and
POLITICAL THEORY,Vol.23 No. 4, November 1995 563-584 ? 1995Sage Publications, Inc. 563

564

POLITICAL THEORY November / 1995

the of each For many, whom individual a good isnot when meet man, they together may bebetter the good, regarded individuallycollectively, as a feast than few if not but just contribute isbetter a dinner than out For towhich many provided ofa single purse. each the has of and individual and among many a share excellence practical wisdom, when meet become a manner man, hasmany and in one who they together, as they just feet, to so with character thought. the and Hence many hands, senses, too and are regard their man for than and understand part, one and better judges a single ofmusic poetry; some them understandwhole.3 and the some another, among they

Theclaim is made atleast that here (or to referred entertained) is sometimes For summation in as "the to argument."4reasons explained section I want 3, I call the avoid label. shall itby grander the that of wisdom term, "doctrinethe which the ofthe multitude" has advantage begging questions of no (DWM), the collective about basisofthe ofthe superiority many. seems bethis. wecompare claim sovereignty to If Thethesis the to ofthe at with claim sovereignty people large general ofcitizens) the (the to body who ofthe individual happens bethe to we want ablest, and best, wisest, may claim tosaythat people's the considered prevails. Although, individual by each is individual, ofthe tothe people inferior onebest man, considered still, as a body which capable collective is of the deliberation,people make may decisions. they the For better, andabler wiser, have benefit each of person ' knowledge, and experience, judgment, insight-which cansynthesize they into collective knowledge, experience, judgment, insight-whereas and the man onebest canrely onhisown individual only resources. then, an is Here, initial ofthe formulation doctrine:
DWMi:The as people acting a body capable making decisions, pooling are of better by their knowledge, and experience, insight, any than individual memberthe of body, however excellent, is capable making hisown. of on

Actually, version the of Aristotelian A stronger claim. DWM,is a modest version would make casefor multitude only the the not against kingship but also against aristocracy. case is harder make That to since aristocratic an regime itself may benefit the from doctrine. considering rival In the claims ofdemocratic aristocratic and regimes, appropriate the comparisonnot is between people a whole individual the as and aristocrats, between but the as people on acting a body, onehand, anaristocratic ofthem, and subset also as on other Just the acting a body, the hand. as people pool can their individual knowledge, experience, judgment, themembers thearistocratic and so of subset pooltheirs Thus stronger can too. a version the of doctrine to offers make casefor people the the against such all subsets.

WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE /

565

as are better their DWM2:Thepeopleacting a body capableofmaking decisions, pooling by than of as the and knowledge, experience, insight, anysubset them acting a bodyandpooling of of and knowledge, experience, insight themembers thesubset.

is the the Ofthe versions, two DWM2 politically more important:political in to the be as debates Athens which Politics might taken a contribution the between and the of concerned issue mainly democracy oligarchy,rule the and For and rule many the ofthe not few, between democracy kingship.S the I shall focus on A of purposes abstract discussion, however, mainly DWM1. how I to concern wethink the about relation of pointswant make number the between individual the the and polis, for purpose weaker and that the version ofDWMissufficient tobring important into the issues focus. most what In of to in I that is follows, shallnotbe trying argue DWM is true a waythat I for constitutional Instead shallconsider its practically important design. for understanding ofcertain themes Aristotle's in theoretical importanceour political philosophy.

2. THEPLACEOF THEDOCTRINE ARGUMENT INARISTOTLE'S of wisdom the of multitudeas I have Thedoctrine the introduced is, said, hesitationchapter Aristotlenot in with some 11. is sure itclinches that the infavor the of many: issue sovereignty of "Whether principle apply this can of toevery and is clear.... Butthere democracy, toallbodies men, not may of whom statement our bebodies men about is nevertheless true."6 He saysthat DWMis conditional the on people being not "debased in I shall to at of 5. character";7 returnthis end section Healsodoesnot out rule the that or men such possibility there be ina polisoneman a few may of virtue their outstanding that even of others ability outstrips that the acting elite collectively-an "sopre-eminently ingoodness there superior that can be no comparison between goodness political the and capacity which he shows which several (or when show, there more is than one)andwhat is I will shown the this by rest."8 discuss possibility endofthe atthe article. these Despite qualifications, Aristotle happy apply doctrine seems to the hispolitical throughout He theory. applies for it, example, judicial well to as and legislative executive functions. initial The question is ("[W]hat tobethe in state?") inchapter after supreme arose power the 10 Aristotle conceded had itis best the if laws andnot that, although rule men, wehave askwho still to is tomake who toadministerlaws. and is the Now, logic DWMseems the of

566

THEORY November / 1995 POLITICAL

toapply most to assemblies is we obviously legislative (which why treat it for but it as the of basis anargumentdemocracy); Aristotle applies alsotothe and task when are laws'application tothe ofequitable judgment there gaps in law: orsilences the
a at the determinepoint all,ornotwell,should onebestmanor the [W]hen law cannot to assemblies should decide.According ourpresent all sit practice meet, injudgement, and all to cases. Now anymember the of deliberate, their judgements relate individual taken is inferior thewiseman.Butthestate madeup to is assembly, separately certainly And to all of manyindividuals. as a feast which theguests contribute better is than a furnished a single is banquet by than man,so a multitude a better judgeofmany things anyindividual.9

the He applies principle tovindicate Athenian also the of practice making state officials to popular accountablethe he the assembly. Though feels force ofthe that with special objection those the to on capacity take magistracies should selected that be for purpose by their only peers ("[a]s,then, the to physician tobecalled account physicians") that election ought and this by andevaluation beproperly only those have can made by who knowledge, he goeson:
these Yetpossibly are objections met ourold answer, ifthepeoplearenotutterly that by degraded, although individually maybe worse they judgesthan those whohavespecial as are knowledge, a bodythey as goodorbetter.10

It is thus that striking what as begins a hesitant speculation quickly becomes oldanswer,"recurring a constant "our a theme, reminderArisin totle's discussion institutions: of
Forthepower doesnot reside the in juryman, counsellor, member theassembly, or or of butinthecourt, thecouncil, theassembly, which aforesaid and and of the individuals counsellor, assemblyman, juryman-are only parts members. for reason or And this the many mayclaimtohavea higher authority thefew;for peopleandthecouncil, than the andthecourts consist many of and persons, their property collectively greater the is than of property one ora fewindividuals holding great offices.11

Notonly but this, DWMis usedalsoas a basis analyzing claims for the ofother thinkers. inbook Aristotle that democracies, Thus 4, says in
thepeoplebecomes monarch, is many one;andthemany a and in havethe power their in not hand, as individuals, collectively. but Homer saysthat is notgoodto havea rule "it ofmany" [Iliad,II 204],butwhether meansthis he corporate or theruleofmany rule, is individuals, uncertain.12

/ WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE

567

not It seems, totoy the that then, inappropriate with possibility DWM occupiescentral than peripheral inAristotle's a rather a overall place conception politics. of

3. ARISTOTLE'SGROUNDSFOR THE DOCTRINE

that does What At grounds Aristotle us for give thinking DWMis true? he to little in times seems offer more itsdefense a metaphor:a "feast than as contribute isbetter a banquet than furnished single all guests towhich the bya is a so than individual.""3 man, a multitude better ofmany judge things any the seems Theideabehind culinary of more metaphor tobethat variety: will amore varied and contributorsproduce varied isbetter. feast feast, amore first insection when discuss Weshall lookatthe ofthese we propositions 8, I of view what take be Aristotle's to to the relation this For pluralism. the I want concentratethe to on second. a purely As moment, culinary matter, onemay contest whether a potluck dinner better a carefully is than planned andorganized And if an banquet.14 even itis,is there appropriate analogy with kind decision a democratic the of will to making in? assembly have engage One clueis provided a second that by uses: of analogy Aristotle that "The aesthetic are appreciation. many better than single a judges manof music poetry; someunderstand part, someanother, and for one and and them understand whole."'5 seems direct tothe the among This they to us multifaceted character the of issues arise decision the that for in assembly. There be many may to aspects a given situation, nooneman, and however can to them wise, betrustednotice all.This obvious is enough the of in case decisions. assembly debating The is policy whethermount expedition to an one toSicily: citizen befamiliar the with Sicilian may coastline; another with the military of Sicilians;third the and capacities the a with cost difficulty of naval a fourth the with bitterness expeditions; ofmilitary failure;fifth a with the to dangers a democratic ofsuccessful state military conquest; soon. and Between them, pooling knowledge, canhopetogain widest their they the possible with pros cons. acquaintance the and It is interesting, though, Aristotle that relates point onlyto this not multifaceted decisions, also to equity-based policy but judgments about individual cases:
of [M]atters detailaboutwhich mendeliberate cannot included legislation. be in Nor does anyone deny thedecision suchmatters be left man, itis argued that of must to but that there should many be judges,andnotoneonly. every For ruler hasbeentrained who

568

POLITICAL THEORY /November 1995

seemstrange a person that should better see bylawjudgeswell;anditwouldsurely with with twoears,or actbetter twohandsor feet, with than twoeyes,or hearbetter many with many.16

is if when fails regard to Theideahere, I understand that it, legislation with hard it certain cases, isbecause multifaceted their character the defies simple the of onwhich rule lawdepends. caseswhere The categorizations general the one a of rules areprecisely caseswhere wants mode judgment fail legal to of case,including which those that sensitive all aspects the is legislation For task, have not might overlooked. that oneneeds many eyes, justtwo. stress sensitivity the Theaccounts given ofmany individualsmany to just of about a or factual decision tobe is aspects a situation whichpolitical legal I Aristotle's is to made. to However,think argumentmeant apply ethical of as or judgmentsjudgmentsvalue well. Onepossible which a of accumuinterpretation, is not purelymatter the of lation factual assimilates Aristotle's ofpolitics the view to knowledge, utilitarian for case democracy forward the Mill later put by earlier andthe Bentham. what when many the Maybe cometogether make happens to a decision that find from other each is out each how they person's well-being be under may affected the by matter consideration.this By means, put they in themselves to a collectivelya better of position make judgment overall A socialutility. merchant not howmuch some may realize measure is he inclined support prejudice situation a farmer he to the initially of may until hears from farmer's mouth. it the own Orthe be process even cruder that. may than Never mind deliberation: eachcitizen simply hisown vote may sothat self-interest, itis the collective decision procedure some (presumably form majority which "wiser" of rule) is from point viewofsocialutility any the of than individual member the of collective. this Indeed, crude utilitarian conception thewisdom the of of multitude theadvantage providing has of grounds only DWMIbut not for alsoDWM2. the If criterionwisdom social of is utility,all groups if make their decisions majority by voting, if all individuals their and vote own then the interests, obviously group comprises that everyone be "wiser" will Readers be relieved learn I do not will to that think wasAristotle's this view. There hints utilitarian are of argument, example, Aristotle's for in that is suggestion politics oneofthose whose arts products properly are judged the by consumer, justthe not skilled artist:
[T]hereare someartswhoseproducts notjudgedof solely, best,by theartists are or those whoseproducts recognized arts themselves, namely are evenbythose whodo not

than subset.'7 any

WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE /

569

the possessthe for of limited the to builder art; example, knowledge thehouseis not only; of be the theuser, in other or, words, master thehousewillactually a better judgethan will than of and thebuilder, as thepilot judgebetter a rudder thecarpenter, theguest just willjudgebetter a feast of than cook. the 18

this with There twowaysofreconciling suggestion thegenerally are It reflect Aristotle's nonutilitarianofAristotelian cast realistic politics. may view men in not in to andmoderate that come togethersociety just order live but in to a accordingvirtue), alsotoa certain to well (i.e., order live life extent of itself oflife-related and for sake life interests. "a simply the Though state of for sake life of only,"19 itis exists the for sake a good andnot the still life, that meet and true "mankind together maintain political the also community life for sakeofmere (inwhich is possibly noble the there some element)."20 to the Preferring diners' judgment thecook'sis a wayof respecting the of importance-partial itis-of this For though aspect political community. is a that the because purpose, multitude better itis instrument, bydefinition more sensitive the to conditionslife the good of than one widely man. Theother is eventhough possibilitythat, Aristotle an objective holds of goodlife which not is hostage purely to theory the utilitarian orwelfarist nevertheless a theory itis which calculations, considerable to gives weight elements-to itis like livea life a certain Though what to subjective of sort. the life the agreeable is not Aristotle suggest necessarily goodlife, does in the Ethics the that good is a pleasant agreeable albeit pleasant life and life, a and life agreeable ofa certain character.21 So,discovering certain that political make disagreeable many decisions life for be people to may relevant the of assessmentthose decisions. I said that Having allthat,think Aristotle,espousing in DWM,is infact himself proposition the committing tothe that many acting collectively may be a better the best only matters fact, only judgethan few not of of not of social but utility, alsoandmost importantly ofmatters ethics, of value, and the nature the of good life-issues which beyond mere go the accumulation ofindividual The experiences. term traditionally for doctrine-"the used the summation argument" suggests allthat going is the that is on aggregation ofwhat person each brings the to argument. that bemisleading-not But may in way DavidKeyt only the that because suggests it says, nothing than more a random unordered and collection experiences;22 the of even application of a social welfare function ismore that. ismisleading than It because suggests it a merely mechanical ordering, whereasthink I Aristotle inmind has somemore thing synthetic oreven dialectical. view that His is deliberation among the is of many a way bringing citizen's each ethical views insights-such and as they are-to bear the on views insights eachofthe and of others, that so

570

/ POLITICAL THEORY November 1995

they light each cast on other, a basis reciprocal for providing and questioning criticism, enablingposition emerge and a to which better any the is than of more anaggregation than orfunctionthose of and inputs much inputs. is the of This wherereally interesting.hunch that kind process it is gets My and the wisdom themultitude the of for that grounds generates collective of Politics similar characterthe is in to process purposes the represented by inethics. Think the of passage about endoxa the own Aristotle's methodology of Nichomachean Ethics. at thebeginning book7 ofthe his Introducing of discussion self-restraint andakrasia, Aristotle says,
with subject with as others betopresent various will the views Our course this proper the after reviewing difficulties involve, about andthen, first to it, they finally establish ifpossible orifnotall,thegreater andthemost all, ofthe part important opinions to of held respectthese states mind; if discrepanciesbesaved, since the can generally with of and residuumcurrent a left the view have been opinion standing,true will sufficiently
established.23

of It is an assumption Aristotle's metaethics it is better begin that to by views opinions toproceed and than examining existing a priori. entirely By the even taking endoxa seriously, when aremutually they one contradictory, canseewhether cast on to they light oneanotherindicate various of aspects truth. this the That procedure have tospeak) democratic a may (so dimension toit-that is not it confined thestudy received to of purely philosophical in indicated Aristotle's opinion-is remarks views happiness about of (euin Ethics. after For daemonia) book1 ofthe briefly listing opinions, the he writes,
of views have been bymany andmen old, [S]ome these held men of others a few by eminent and persons; itis not probable either these that of should entirely be mistaken, but rather they that should right atleost be in some respect,even most one or in respects.24

Thephilosopher's own job-Aristotle's jobinthe Ethics-is consider to the common views usethem castlight eachother, bring the and to on to out in each respects which hassomething tocontribute truth. this tothe In way, Aristotle's philosophical own method bea model what supposed may of is togoonwhen many anddeliberate the act collectively.25 In a recent discussion DWM,Mary of Nichols complained has that Aristotle overlooks need someone would the for who actually the do synthesomeone (onmy who sizing, do the account) would for various contributing views what author the the of Nichomachean doesfor endoxa: Ethics the "A of work music poetry more the or is than sumofitsparts. Whois itwho or the In I judges appreciates whole?"26fact, think, underestimates she the

WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE /

571

we confidence may ingenuine have dialectic opposed the dialectic to fake (as author "several views" always hisown ofthe but on single terms considering of andinhisown formulations). bycontrast,J.S. Mill'ssuggestions Think, about synthesisdiverse the of ideasinOnLiberty. issues, argued, Some he to worked ina dialectic out controlled may beamenable being not tightly by thinker: a single
in of is a of Truth, thegreat and practical concerns life, so much question thereconciling of that few and combining opposites very haveminds to sufficiently capacious impartial with to and maketheadjustment an approach correctness, ithastobe madebytherough under of between combatants hostile banners.27 process a struggle fighting

the of On this be account, absence a master synthesizer actually an may in end, view emerges endupbeing that the will Of advantage. course, the There nevertheless held someone hopes all,orbymost). by (one be by may in to ideaofa consensus discussion rather somethingthe "emerging"open concerns nodoubt than Mill's are being anachactively engineered. Though in ronistic this that to context, is noreason losesight the of process Mill as kind describes the ofpossibility Aristotle iscontemplating model inhis of nonaristocratic politics. I want move to nowtoconsider wider the DWM significance may have ourunderstanding of certain for central themes Aristotle's in political philosophy.

4. DWM ANDTHENATURE MERIT OF The theme the first is relation between Aristotle's onpolitical views power andhismeritocratic of theory justice. Itiseasy forget Aristotle's to that inthe argument middle chaptersbook of is 3 ofthe Politics presented anapplication the as of theory distributive of in justice expounded book5 ofthe Ethics: indeed is justabout only it the of theory wehaveinhiswork. the sustained that application the In Ethics, we aretoldthat menagree what justin distribution be "all that is must to in accordingmerit some sense, though donot specify same they all the sort ofmerit."28 Inbook ofthe 3 Politics, Aristotle attempts toapply doctrine that tothe distribution very ofone important species good-namely of "offices ofstate," which says "posts honor."29 he are of His discussion what of should as count merit thepurposes the for of distribution good a fine ofthis is anticipation modem ofthe moral doctrine ofrelevant reasons. "[S]ome persons saythat will offices state of ought be to

572

1995 POLITICAL THEORY /November

distributed to in unequally accordingsuperior excellence,whatever respect," excellence wealth excellence birth;3' Aristotle no of and of but including has trouble of view. is,heargues, saying places an disposing this It like that in should distributed basis beauty physical be onthe of and orchestra courage, in be whereas fact should distributed onthe basisofthose excelthey only contributethepurposes which lencesthat to for orchestras directly are in constituted-that "the claims is,excellence playing. of Similarly, rival candidates office only based the for can be on possession elements of which into compositiona state." enter the of A slightly different about meaning merit of not problem the concerns, its it or but sort Is like elements criteria, the ofconcept is.31 merit, ourmodern an concept desert, essentially tothe backward-looking proportioned concept, moral ofa person's acts? itlike concept desert we Is the quality of past that in and use,forexample, awarding and prizes honors, in theretributive ofpunishment? merit Oris apportionment rather a forward-looking concept for in Aristotle, to indicating to ability regard a task be performedthe in future? Thebackward-lookinghassome view in Ethics. hisdiscusIn supportthe sion proper of Aristotle pride, observes,
is Desert relative external to of goods;andthegreatest these, should is that we which say, we render thegods,andwhich to most at,andwhich the peopleofposition aim is prize the and is appointedfornoblest deeds; this honour.32

Honoras "theprizeappointed thenoblest for deeds"certainly a has backward-looking andweshould forget Aristotle flavor; not that explicates the good political of participation matter honor.33 as a of Evenso,I think itis theforward-looking that that view counts the in Politics. Certainly iswhat orchestra that the analogy suggests: distributes one in orchestrapeople the places the to on basisthat willbe abletoplay they not basis their well, onthe of having abletoplay inthe Maybe been well past. is evidence prospective pastperformance of ability. itis evidence But of not merit, merit itself. if Now, wetake forward-looking ofmerit combine with this view and it DWM, get quite we a striking Not ismerit a backward-looking result. only not but concept, itis alsonot necessarilyindividualized an concept. effect The ofDWM,as DavidKeyt points is toallow equations Aristotelian out, the of to justice range groups, justover over not individuals.' Take individuals, and two Brown Jones, former ofmodest the a man virtue and pedestrian judgment, latterman excellence far the the a of so as political

Waldron OF /WISDOM THEMULTITUDE 573

Considered terms their in of virtues concerned. are individual respective abilities, merits Jones office Brown; than higher Brown perhaps considered at if to does merit office all.But DWMapplies a citizenry byhimself not any then their claims office be identical. to both that includes ofthem, A may Brown with group wiser Jones including along Jones becollectively than may and It himself any or group comprising Jones hispeers. willofcourse only be that which included almost Jones not but certainly true a citizen body be wiser a that Brown would collectively than citizen body included (CJ) if is in inferiorwisdom Brown not but Jones However,CJ collectively (CB). then differencemerit the that both in to a body includes ofthem (CJ&B), and the incollective between Jones Brown wis(which grounds difference be relevance far political so as between and may oflimited dom office CJ CB) A merit of collective is concerned.person's is a matter the political capacity he be ofa group which might a member. of this the of makes decisions its Admittedly,leaves open question how CJ&B far procedures be sensitive the its andhow to difference inindividual may Jones Brown.3s bethe that doesbetter Itmay merit between and as case CJ&B on basisofthe decisions the bymaking ofits equalparticipation members than any that to votes people by procedure accords of greater like weight the Jones. need bethe ofcourse. the That not case But mere ofthe fact superiority ofJones Brown, ofCJ CB, not or to to is incompatible its with being case. the Thedialectical of dynamics CJ&B besuch the may that incremental benefits ofcombining Brown's limited with extensive insights Jones's accrue insights of onlyin thelight a deliberative that procedure treats twoofthem the as formallyequals. I find anintriguing this not for light possibility,least the itcasts modem on discussions diversity merit academic about in and hiring. ofussupport Many afflrmative because think a political action we that science department ora law school be better to discharge mission ithasa diverse will able its if membership ifitconsists a poolofsimilar similarly than of and talented individuals. the On accounthave I given Aristotle's of argument, affirmative action still regarded a distribution can be as according merit-only to now, ourstarting is the point merit the of department orfaculty a whole. as The claims particular of justice individuals a placeintheacademy then to are derived the from merit-based claims canbemade behalf the justice that on of to groups which might they belong appointed, than if rather directly the on basisofanything canbe regarded "their that as own"merit. Accordingly, when are we choosing between candidates a position a departnent, two for in weshould decide comparing merit the by the that department have would if itincluded ofthem the one with merit the that department have it would if

574

/ THEORY November POLITICAL 1995

the We come with different onthat a result basis included other. may than up if wewould wecompared individual onthe their merits unspoken assumption would acting hisorher each be on that ofthem own.

AS RIGHTS PRIVATE 5. POLITICAL PROPERTY COMMON FOR USF6 Aristotle of"the talks or at members Though many" "the people large," in of entitlements toparticiofthat classarelikely think terms individual to on status a citizen. as pate, based inasmuch simply eachperson's However, is based DWM,these as the on casefor individual democracy participatory with must entitlements beexercised some There responsibility. isaninteresthere Aristotle's ofproperty. inganalogy with theory discussion property of Aristotle's to of purportsbe somethinga comproa of misebetween rejection Plato's communism an attempt secure and to and some the of social ethical that from advantages result sharing:
should Property be ina certain common, as a general private.... sense but, And rule, of and yet reason goodness, inrespect use,"friends,"the by of as proverb "will says, have things all common." For, ... although man his property, things every has own some of he willplaceat thedisposal hisfriends, ofothers shares use with while he the them....Itis clearly better property beprivate, the ofitcommon; that should but use and special the business the of legislator create men benevolent isto in this disposition.37

Itisnot what clear concrete arrangements Aristotle actually inmind has when hetalks incommon Hisexamples about private use. property mainly involve thesharing private of in largesse a very closecircle friends, that of and of coursehappens every in system private of property. Apart from the Lacedaemonian custom travelers of appropriating provisions fields from that they byontheir pass journey,38 is nothing there particularly common the in sense polis-wide the of in examples Aristotle that gives. Butifweturn political to property-that the is,to distributable that good consists the of right participate to inpolitics-we make can perfect of sense the ofcommon A man's idea use. to right participate a sense private is in his property.39 rationale the But the for distribution right ofthis requires each that usethat not for property,just hisown purposes, ina way contributes but that tothe in excellencejudgmentthe of group multitude or towhich belongs. one each Though hasanindividual the right, proper ofthat involves use right an collective essentially exercise. ispossible, course, the It of that enfranchiseof ment themany could construed eachas purely individualistic be by an

OF Waldron /WISDOM THEMULTITUDE 575

vote. NowI canprotect interests. Let "Now my opportunity: I cancastmy that on else themselves." except theassumption But everyone lookafter on utilitarian that will DWMis based purely grounds, attitude beinappropriis required the member the of multitude ate.Theindividual by logicofhis but not (andtheir) enfranchisement, tousehisvote only responsibly,touse with so the vote that itina way interacts deliberatively others, that final in a which something than mere is more reflects synthesis a. theassembly ofits aggregation constituent parts. about which the of Oneway reading qualification corruption, I mentioned deliberato is the 2,40 insection is that corruption vicious inability interact or A under influence money, the of with patronage, tively others. person who cast without to is for passion, example, likely besomeone will hisvote has his or one to him), listeningothers (except patron the who bribed orwho or basis interestimpulse of ofwhat been has willcastitonthe irrespective in deliberative His so in and saidback forth the process. deafness, tospeak, in of is the selfish deliberation mark hisusing political propertya narrowly his and about good Ideally, each bring experience hisopinion the then, will in that toothers, hemust and tothe assembly a form canbecommunicated on contribute insight their and to listen others reflect what sayas they they Beiner hisbookPolitical in Ronald takes andexperience. Judgment as a an comment Thucydides: who "One formsjudgment a motto interesting by but himself onany to people, might well as point, cannot explain clearly the at all on thesubject."42 common ofpolitical The havenever use thought virtues-skillexplaining own in one's views, skill property requires specific inlisteningthe to views others, inbringing two relation of skill with the into in one another a waythat their highlights strengths diminishes their and and synthesis that weaknesses, skill onceagain explaining tentative in the onehasarrived for benefit others are, course, at the of engaged a in (who of of These skills empathy, they also, course, are similar but are of as exercise). And bring towhat perhaps us is of Beiner reminds skills rhetoric.43 they us, the most connection todraw-between doctrine the I want the of important of multitude Aristotle's and wisdom the of speechconception reasoned nature. logos-as the toman's key political
way.41

6. POLITICS AND SPEECH

There a suggestionRousseau's is will in SocialContract the that general could expected emerge (orperhaps be to even if citizens had especially)"the

576

THEORY November POLITICAL 1995 /

nocommunication with one another."" Aristotle, contrast, wisdom For the by is the ofwhich multitude capableemerges "when meet only they together" he several The a phrase repeats of times.45 institution their meeting together of medium their is the is assembly (ecclesia) andthe meeting togetherspeech. in I have calledmyapproach thisessayone of heuristic exaggeration. it However is,in myview, to the of impossible overestimate importance the DWM andthe claim made the at beginning the between of Politics connection the of nature hispower speech. is of that mark man'spolitical
of that is animal beesorother than Now, man more a political animals is gregarious as evident. in and is only Nature, weoften makes who say, nothingvain, man the animal hasthe ofspeech. whereas voice but indicationpleasure pain, And mere is an gift of or found andis therefore inother animals their nature attains theperception to of (for and intimation pleasure pain the and ofthem oneanother, nofurther),power to and the is toset of the speech intended forth expedient the and inexpedient,therefore and likewise the and unjust.4 just the

For one thing passage immediately the undermines crudeutilitarian any ofDWM. Ifcollective interpretation wisdom amounted to an aggregaonly of tionof expressions individual the couldbe little more utility, multitude on than account. animals, this I But theconnection wantto emphasize works theother in If direction. a weretypicallymatter monarchy, of politics a matter rulebytheonebest of man,thenthispowerof speechwouldbe largely redundant, exceptas a the vehiclefor expression decision command. of and Speechis themark of man'spolitical nature becausespeechis themedium which in politics takes place.Andsincepolitics takes placeinthemedium speech, necessarily of it takesplace in a medium plurality-acontext whichthere many of in are each contributinga collective to speakers, decision something noneof that theothers couldhavegottobyhimself. ThomasHobbes,infamously, thehuman took powerof speechto be indicative man's natural of unfitness society. for Whatdistinguished men from creatures beesandants like (which Hobbesmistakenly thought Aristotle as regarded political animals) was,according Hobbes, beesandants to that
want art words, which men represent that of some can by toothers, which Good, that is inthe likenesse Evill; Evill, the of and in likenesse Good; augment,diminish of and or the apparent of greatnesseGood Evill; and discontenting and men, troubling Peace their attheir pleasure.47

Itis tempting think theAristotelian to that position, opposition Hobbes, in to must that be is in speech a medium which sharea viewaboutgoodness we

Waldron /WISDOMOFTHEMULTITUDE 577

orjustice. Hobbes thinks is Aristotle think must speech essentially divisive; medium the for expressionthe is natural of amicable that speech the unanimin which discussed chapter book ofthe is 9 In ity it Ethics.' fact, would 6, to the between bea mistake state contrast Aristotle Hobbes these and in terms. Between divisiveness unanimity and is debate complementarity: and differin ent views tocontribute coming togetherdeliberation toa dynamically new for is just synthesis. of Speech, Aristotle,not theunanimous chanting actruths it of about cepted debate justice: is a matter conversation, in the articulate the of which I said) finds one ecclesia, discussion, sort dialectic (as inAristotle's themselves. works represented In other for is a of words, politics, Aristotle, matter genuine interdepenus canget without others political which dence. Noneof the in we by life, could ifspeech merely do were a mattereach of voice giving toa preordained that unanimity. perhaps (Itis characterizesindividthe significant Aristotle on polis book1 byasking toconsider a foot in ual'sdependence the us what would likeifthewhole be or a hand were and he body destroyed49 that the characterizes wisdom the of multitudebook3 with analogy a in the of that body hasmany many and feet, hands, many senses.)50 then DWMstands a kind model paradigm Mysuggestion is that as of or ofournature speaking as Each beings. cancommunicate toanother experiencesandinsights complement that other that those the already possesses, andwhen happens dense this in interaction throughout a community, it enables group a whole attain degree wisdom practical the as to a of and that knowledge surpasses that the even of most excellent individual member. I don't want push exaggeration far. do not to the too I want saythat to the book1 doctrine speech the of as mark man's of political character intimates a direct essentialist for argument democracy. the But passage from book1 does indicate centrality thelogicof DWM to Aristotle's the of overall inthe argument Politics: people bettertheir that do in practical thinking when work they ingroups rather when rely, by ontheir than they one one, individual excellence. DWMdoes, the What in context book chapter is pursue of 3, 11, that toanextreme. idea

7. PLURALISM

I saida moment that weconnect ago if DWMwith ideathat the speech is the mark man's of political nature, canseethat we Aristotelian cannot politics be unanimous just the repetition ofshared views. Speech a sign diversity, is of a sign wehave that something distinctive tolearn from another.5' one DWM

578

1995 POLITICAL THEORY /November

us of book thus points toAristotle's critique Platonic inPolitics, 2,and unity on and "The of is insistence difference diversity. nature a state to tohisown
be a plurality.... [A] stateis notmadeup onlyof so manymen,butof

kinds for do constitute a state."52 different ofmen; similars not here to than fact we have own our Difference amounts more the that each our needs betaken account any to into to in plausible lives live, own special of common Weare here about conceptionthe good. talking partly something of with to or toa amounting division labor regard knowledgeunderstandingofthese inAquinas's ideas: made a point prominent development
of Man ... hasa natural knowledge life'snecessities ina general only way.Beinggifted he use suchuniversal to of with reason, must itto pass from principles theknowledge his no in concerns well-being. what particular Reasoning thus, however, onemancould has him nature destined toliveinsociety, that so all attain necessary knowledge. Instead, his each maydevotehimself somebranch the to of the dividing labourwith fellows someother and another This one sciences, following medicine, science, so forth. is further menalonehavethepower speechwhich of enablesthem the that to evident from fact the of to convey fullcontent their thoughts oneanother.53

we also about as opposed In addition, may betalking dialectical difference, between DWMandAristomere complementarity. Myearlier comparison indicated a multitude bemore that totle's with endoxa way the may insightful man one contrive spark eachother's to than excellent ifitsmembers off viewsandsharpen moral ethical dissonant their awareness dialectically. are of which so extreme the are Maybethere someforms conflict that of views are proponentsdifferent (orinterests) justtalking orpastone at not not that another, listening particularly,taking anything is saidbyan into This of is opponent account. extreme partisan conflictperhaps a itself of corrupt I mentioned end section Still, form the "deafness" atthe of 5. there is a large between moderation the ofconflict is necessarysustain gap that to deliberation the and general genuine elimination ofdiversityethical of view. There therefore difficulty Alasdair is some with Macintyre's that claim Aristotelian political is community"informed a shared by vision the of hunches out, should bear we good."54my If expect citizens Aristotle's the in views about goodatleast diverse those polistohold the as as canvased as in endoxa theEthics. course, Of that's what common sense tells also. us Aristotle not did conjure conflicting upout hisown the endoxa of imagination. were views They commonly some held, among ordinary people, some some among the philosophers, among elite. gavenoindication one He that would a to expect goodsociety exhibit anything than diversity less the of viewdisplayed the ethical in pages the of Ethics-the diversity usedas he thestarting ofhisowndialectical point wisdom that amsuggesting and I

WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE /

579

of multitude concocted political in forms basisalsoofthewisdom the the deliberation. Politics man that alone does on the NowAristotle sayearly inthe among animals a sense goodandevil, has of and and it justice injustice, that is the of these that a polis.iButthe sharing a viewabout fact things constitutes follows discussion man'spower the of that passage that of immediately I it cuts both that sharingview a speech atleast ways. read as indicating our is as perhaps the the about goodorjustice tobe understood dynamically, of talk presupposes wecome with that upshot ourtalking oneanother, that from to theconversation different So for starting points. it is misleading in to his of of Macintyrecouch position terms a "form social order whose shared mode life of already the answer answers its or of expresses collective to question 'What the mode life human is best citizens the of for "56 beings?' that Itis wrong, for tosuggest ifweever reach too, him actually newethical conclusions itcan be we from through deliberation, only because started own Aristotle's method ethics in shared intimates suchasno premises."7 and I does sumption, nor, amarguing, hispolitics.

8. A GOD AMONGMEN

Thefinal connection tomake I want stems Aristotle's from discussion in 3 Politics chapter book ofthe where asks: he 13, What ina given if, society, DWMis false? After "ifthe all, are people tobe supreme, because are they than few, if stronger the then oneman, more one, not majority, or than but a is stronger the than many, ought rule, not many.""8 to and the they That's we predictable enough: know Aristotle prepared countenance that was to ormonarchycertain in aristocracy circumstances. Thestriking however,hisassertion thing, is a paragraphtwo or later that the who the person provides counterexample toDWMmay justly properly or
be regarded nota partofthe as polis:
If,however, there someoneperson, more be or than one,although enough make not to of upthefull complement a state, whoseexcellence so pre-eminent the is that excellence orthepolitical of admit no comparison hisortheirs, orthey capacity therest of with he can no longer regarded part a state; justicewillnotbe donetothesuperior, be as of for ifhe is reckoned onlyas theequal ofthosewhoareso far inferior himin excellence to andin political Sucha manmaytruly deemed God among capacity. be a men.59

Youwillnot surprisedhear inmy be to that present excited I cannot state resist a between passage Aristotle's makingconnection this and insistence in

580

1995 POLITICAL THEORY/ November

that the about speech, book1, in a sentence immediately preceding stuff a or the whocansurvive flourish or without polisis either beast a anyone and by animal. hewho nature not And is by god:"[M]an bynature apolitical a or a is is accident withoutstate, eitherbadman above mere humanity."60 man who than rest when act they collectively-the Theman isbetter the even are as the without whois as goodwithout conversation, multitude speech, he of of From point view, one of power speech. for men, hehasnoneed the he from is the idealabsolute point monarch; another ofview, is (as Hannah as of as the Arendt politics Billy recognizes) much antithesis mundane
Budd.6" He nature. is a godamong but apolitical with it-has anexcellent nature, not

15 there. he matter Though saysinchapter does leavethe Aristotle not the 13 after man must best chapter passage continues, that "the legislate,"62 as "a Godamong men," follows:
thosewhoareequalin is concerned with Hencewe see that only legislation necessarily excellence there nolaw-they are is and for and birth capacity; that menofpre-eminent who to them.63 wouldbe ridiculous attempted makelaws for a themselves law.Anyone

of Aristotle's seems beabout to toknow tomake this. what point Itisdifficult should the men" he the oflaw:although "Godamong rule legislate, perhaps himself the he The of not should bebound by rules makes. images divinity with that associates apolitical natures another take andbestiality Aristotle who the to may turn this at point-"he bids lawrule bedeemed bidGodand but of Reasonalonerule, he whobidsmanruleaddsan element 'the I have been tofigure able beast"64-that not out. to Even harder figure are out Aristotle's commentsostracism. on Inchapter with ideathat ostracism thetruly the the of excellent-their 13,he toys from polisover which tower-"is they based upon kind a of expulsion the be to are, puts political justice."65 cannot subject law;they asAristotle They a of not it, lawunto themselves. that not for sorts reasons, least Yet will do all that than multitude, are"not they enough make to though arebetter the they of state."66 oneexcellent orthefew The man, up thefull complementthe excellent do not men, though morally self-sufficient, havethefullselfwith associated political they tolive need alongside sufficiency community:67 those whom cannot with benefit speaking. those from And others turn in they to excellence, though may even that would fools forgo benefit their be the of mean the of own natures. denying efficacy their political Andso the inbook3 ends with unsatisfactory reassurances: discussion 68"Thewhole "Thebest must that be which administered best"; is bythe is to and is in pre-eminence the naturally superior thepart, he whohasthis

WaldronWISDOM OF THE MULTITUDE /

581

it not to or to of "Surely would be right kill, relation a whole a part";69 in a or that his or ostracize, exilesuch person, require he take turn being
governed."70

that preferable I so conclusionnot onefrom is the Surely?amnot sure the of with power speech takes and account the 16 perseveres the of chapter that logic collectivity: of
still the to If,as I said before, goodmanhas a right rulebecausehe is better, twogood than is menarebetter one:this theold saying. twogoing together, andtheprayer Agamemnon, of I wouldthat hadtensuchcounsellors!71

NOTES
1. My hermeneutical is MichelFoucault, hero who madethisresponse someonewho to of quibbledabouthis interpretationNietzsche: "The onlyvalid tribute thought to such as Nietzsche's precisely use it, deform tomakeitgroan protest. ifcommentators is to to and And it, thensay that am beingfaithful unfaithful Nietzsche, is of absolutely interest" I or to that no Selected Interviews Other (Power/Knowledge: and 1972-1977 Writings [NewYork: Pantheon, 1980]). 2. Aristotle, Politics(JowettlBarnes ed. Everson(Cambridge: trans.), Stephen University Press,1988),65: book3, chap.10,1281all. 3. Ibid.,66: book3, chap.11,1281a43-b9. 4. For example, David Keyt, "Aristotle's of Theory Distributive in Justice," A Companion toAristotle's ed. Politics, David KeytandFredD. Miller Basil Blackwell, (Oxford: 1991),270. 5. Either version thedoctrine of also might be usedas the basisofan exclusionary claim. We knowthat whenAristotle talked aboutthepeopleat large, he-like mostAthenians-did not haveuniversal in suffrage mind. claimmadeinDWM is madewith The regard a bodywhich to is itself subset all theinhabitants Athens: of a of women, notoriously, excluded, were were as as children, werethose whowereenslaved, wereresident as aliens, so on. DWM might and be used as a criterion suchexclusion: person justifiably for a is excluded from citizen the bodyif better decisionscan be made by poolingtheknowledge, experience, judgment the and of of members a citizen bodythat excludes than pooling knowledge, him, by the experience, and of judgment themembers a bodythat of includes him. 6. Aristotle, Politics, 128lbiS. 66: 7. Ibid.,126: 1282a 8. Ibid.,71: book3, chap.13, 1284a. 9. Ibid.,76: book3, chap.15, 1286a27-31. 10. Ibid.,67: book3, chap.11,1282al4. 11.Ibid.,68: 1282a34-41. 12. Ibid.,89: book4, chap.4, 1292a10-14.

582

1995 POLITICAL THEORY /November

this of 76: culinary metaphors pervade part 13.Ibid., book chap.15,1286a29. 3, Indeed, mixed what pure with is sometimes the makes entire told "impure when food book Weare that 3. will better a of and "the wholesome" 67:chap. 128 mass more (ibid., 11, 1b36) that guest judge 68: feast the than cook" (ibid., 1282a23). to toAristotle's reference and background MD: Rowman Littlefield, 195, 20:"Inthe 1992), n. at end to contribute meal is the describedthe ofAristophanes' feast which Assembly the many is foods the random that mixturerevolting." a made ofsomany ofWomen (1163-82),meal up 66: 15.Aristotle, Politics, book chap. 1281a43-b9. 3, 11, 79: 16.Ibid., book chap. 1287b23-8. 3, 16, or "the cannot happy be unless to in most, 17.Bearing mind accordingAristotle, whole that, of 2, 5, all,orsome itsparts enjoy happiness" 29:book chap. 1264bl8). (ibid., book chap. 1282al8. 67-8: 18.Ibid., 3, 11, 63: 19.Ibid., book chap. 1280a32. 3, 9, 60: 20.Ibid., book chap. 1278b25. 3, 6, trans. DavidRoss Sir Nichomachean (hereafter Ethics 21.Forexample, Ethics), Aristotle, book chap. 1170a. otherwise Oxford 9, 9, (Unless (London: University 1954)240-1: Press, tothe are all translation.) indicated, references Ethics tothis 271. "Aristotle's of 22.Keyt, Theory Distributive Justice," I For passage have used translation the Ethics: 7, chap. 1145bl. this book 23.Aristotle, 1, byH. Rackham (London: Heinemann, 377. 1934), 15-6: Ethics 24.Aristotle, (Ross 8, translation), book chap. 1098b. 1, uses methodtalk add Aristotle this to about DWMitself-treatingtoo this 25.I should that some and even There as a common that "contain difficultyperhaps truth." is nothing view may in form self-reference, ofcourse additional of or that provided either tautologicalvicious this for doctrine alsoavailable. are grounds the ed. V.Shields 27.J. Mill, Liberty, Carragheen S. On IN: Merrill, 1956), (Indianapolis,Bobbs 36. 58:chap. paragraph 2, 28.Aristotle, 112: lb. Ethics, book chap. 1131a-113 5, 3, 29.Aristotle, 65: Politics, book chap. 128 3, 10, 1a30. 30.Ibid., book chap. 1282b23. 69: 3, 12, to 31.I amgratefulDavid for Gill several onthe discussed this in and conversations topic the His isthe of following paragraphs. view, however, opposite mine. 32.Aristotle, 90:book chap. 1123b emphasis). Ethics, 4, 3, (my the an But case else, 33."Then ought good rule have to supreme power? inthat everybody excluded power, be dishonoured. the from will of are of being For offices state posts honour; hold andifonesetofmen the must of (Aristotle, Politics, always them, rest bedeprivedthem" 65:book chap. 128 3, 10, 1a30). "Aristotle's ofDistributive 270: strategy argument ofthe is 34.Keyt, Theory Justice," "The the toapply principledistributive tomen of as well In justice taken collectively as individually. terms our of formulation principlemodem ofthe in notation, strategy allow the isto functional individual the variables and'y'toreign only individual men alsoover 'x' free but groups not over orbodies free of men." to for this 35.I amgratefuloneofPolitical Theory's referees pressing point. inthis 36.Myargument section a lot many owes to with Frank. conversations Jill 26: 37.Aristotle, Politics, book chap. 1263a25-35. 2, 5, 38.Ibid., 1263a35. 26:
26. Nichols, and 66. Citizens Statesmen, P. and A ofAristotle ' Politics (Savage, 14.Compare Mary Nichols, Citizens Statesmen:Study

OF /WISDOM THEMULTITUDE 583 Waldron

it is by 39. I knowit seemsodd to describe thisway,butthat whatis implied Aristotle's under auspices distributive the of justice. of rights treatment political 26: 40. Aristotle, Politics, book2, chap.5, 1282a. for referees thispoint. to Theory's 41. I amgrateful oneofPolitical War: Beiner, by History the of Pelopennesian book2,chap.6; quoted Ronald 42. Thucydides, 1983),83. (London: Methuen, Political Judgment 83. Political Judgment, 43. Beiner, book2, chap.3, in TheSocial Contract Rousseau,TheSocial Contract: 44. Jean-Jacques J. trans. G.D.H. Cole (London: M. Dent,1973).But"communication" arguably andDiscourses, for point. I to of refers theformation factions.amgrateful Paul Thomas this to 66: 45. Aristotle, Politics, book3, chap.11,128lbI and 128lbS. 46. Ibid.,3: book 1,chap.2, 1253a8. ed. Tuck(Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge 47. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Richard 1991),chap.17, 119-20. 231: book9, chap.6, 1167a. 48. Aristotle, Ethics, 4: Politics, book1,chap.2, 1253a21. 49. Aristotle, 50. Ibid.,66: book3, chap.11,1281b6;see also 79: book3, chap.16, 1287b26. have "It becausethemembers themultitude of 51. As MaryNicholswrites, is precisely teaches to havea justclaimto rule.Aristotle democrats they contributionsmakethat different and to of claimto political participation" (Citizens thevalue of heterogeneitya defense their Statesmen, 66). 21: Politics, book2, chap.2, 1261al8-25. 52. Aristotle, book On Government: 1, chap. 1, inAquinas:Selected 53. St. ThomasAquinas, Princely Basil Blackwell, ed. 1959),3. PoliticalWritings, A. P. D'Entreves (Oxford: A in Duckworth, 1981), (London: 54. Alasdair Macintyre, Virtue: Study MoralTheory After 146. 3: Politics, book1,chap.2, 1253al8. 55. Aristotle, WhoseJustice? Which of 56. AlasdairMacintyre, Rationality? (NotreDame: University Notre Dame Press,1988),133. 57. Ibid.,134. 71: 58. Aristotle, Politics, book3, chap.13,1283b23-26. 59. Ibid.,71: book3, chap.13, 1284a4-11. Ethics, 238: book 9, chap.9: "It 60. Ibid.,3: book 1, chap.2, 1253a2.See also Aristotle, mana solitary: onewouldchoosetohaveall the no thing makethehappy to wouldbe a strange in of manis meant political it for association, whosenature and goodthings theworld solitude: is to livewith others." 61. See Hannah On Penguin, 1973),chap.2. (Harmondsworth: Arendt, Revolution 62. Aristotle, 76: Politics, book3, chap.15, 1286a22. 63. Ibid.,71-2:book3, chap.13, 1284a4-14. 64. Ibid.,78: book3, chap.16, 1287a30. 65. Ibid.,73: book3, chap.13,1284bl7.See also 72: 1284al9. 66. Ibid.,71: 1284a5. 67. Fortheself-sufficiency polis,see ibid.,3: book 1,chap.2, 1252b30. ofthe 68. Ibid.,81: book3, chap.18,1288a34. 69. Ibid.,80: book3, chap.17, 1288a26. 70. Ibid.,80: book3, chap.17,1288a25. 71. Ibid.,79: book3,chap.16, 1287bl2-15. quotations from Iliad,X 224 andII are the The 372,respectively.

584

1995 POLITICAL THEORY /November

is deanat the SchoolofLaw (BoaltHall), Waldron professor lawandassociate of Jeremy and and Berkeley, chairofBoalt'sJurisprudence Social Policy University California, of He of philosophy department. is theauthor of Program. is also a member Berkeley's He Press,1988), The to Property University including Right Private several books, (Oxford 1989), Burke MarxoftheRights Man (Methuen, and of Bentham, Nonsense uponStilts: Press,1993).He Collected (Cambridge University Papers1981-91 and LiberalRights: articles rights, on and property, liberalism, socialjustice.His has published numerous centeron the idea of politicaldecisionmaking presentresearchinterests and, in in diverse assemblies. legislation large-scale particular,