Yet another GRE essay …

Writing in the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle made two crucial observations in his treatise Politics about the human condition in relation to our nature as political animals: first, that scarcity was the human lot and man could never break free of the competition for scarce resources, and second, that hierarchy in production and organisation could never be erased. It was only those who had the leisure to rule and then be ruled in turn that qualified as citizens for Aristotle’s ideal polis: political equality entailed some degree of material sufficiency and isolation from economic forces. Contemplation, Aristotle noted, could only happen in the absence of material wants, and thus Aristotle designed an entire schema of politics where the household, the oikos, aimed to be a self-sufficient unit that enabled its head to live a political or a contemplative life. That was the hallmark of a good polis, of the ideal city-state. But those subject to the will of the oikos-master, the head of the household, were slaves in Aristotle’s treatise: either slaves by virtue of their position in the household or slaves by virtue of being subject to economic forces and thus having no place, no oikos, where they could retire to at the end of the day. Thus, for Aristotle, the good life was mutually exclusive from the life of toil and penury: but it was only readily available to a few. The welfare of all, the summum bonum, as the medieval schoolmen following his stead called it, lied in everyone recognising their place in society and fulfilling their duty, and for some it meant labour, and for others it meant leisure for intellectual pursuits. I will seek to illustrate that the general welfare of the people is not mutually exclusive from the advancements of those who govern it or exercise intellectual labour in such contexts.

Aristotle –– famous for coining the term oikonomia, the art of household management from which we derive the term ‘economics’ –– remarked in the same book that perhaps this economic organisation of the household would cease when looms started spinning themselves and lyres started playing themselves. But he said those things with a marked incredulity, and he was right: when the spindles started spinning themselves in Manchester and lyres started playing themselves in the phonographs of Edison’s making, there was still no respite. It was, as Hannah Arendt remarked, the fate of the vast majority of peoples to be Homo Laborens, the labouring man.

The mills of Manchester and Liverpool were not the most hospitable places for anyone to work in: the hours were long, the work tedious, and the pay barely enough to sustain a family. Adam Smith noted in the ‘Wealth of Nations’, as early as 1776, the impact of the machinisation and division of labour: it would result in the dumbing down of work and cause the rot of the peoples. But, by the time Benjamin Disraeli came to be the Prime Minister of the UK in the middle of the 19th century, systematic reforms had more or less curbed these practices, abolishing child labour and introducing the modern eight hour workday. The hallmark, then, of a great nation –– it was hard to deny that Britain was a great nation then, for the sun never set on the British Empire –– was that it took care of all, even those who laboured, and it took care to ensure that even if necessity demanded work, as far as possible the work was conducted under safe conditions that were not exploitative.

Yet, while these magnificent reforms heralded a fairer and more equitable age, they were far from what made Britain entirely great. The general prosperity and economic supremacy was made possible by advancements in science and technology that far exceeded anything being done on the continent at that time –– the Scotsman James Watt had invented the steam engine, and the railway found first expression and application in the British countryside. The advancements enabled people to travel widely and cheaply, reduced the cost of essential goods and services and enabled the vast majority of people to have access to a wider variety of these items that they could not have afforded elsewhere. The scientific achievements and the advancements of the government were key to the material prosperity and social upliftment of the masses. If Adam Smith distinguished himself in economics, the Duke of Marlborough distinguished himself on the battlefield. By keeping Britain safe, the Duke advanced the general welfare; by increasing the bank of knowledge available to British, Smith showed the path to general welfare. Darwin gave us an account of our evolution that has been largely undisputed since it was handed down in his book, also published in mid-19th century Britain. Our understanding of the world, of disease and human existence, of economic motivation and moral judgement, is as important to our existence as is the general welfare of the people.

While the argument can be made that great nations often maintain a single-minded focus toward some great end –– intellectual more than economic –– the rising tide lifts all boats. If a colour television costed half a years’ worth of minimum wage in the USA when it was launched, today, a high-definition smart television costs not even 8 hours’ minimum wage if purchased at the right time. Great nations, having achieved a degree of prosperity that was hitherto unprecedented, find their attention turned to more pressing social and cultural matters: and it is here that they seek to work for the improvement of all. Even Aristotle’s household, as despotic as it might seem, provided well for all –– and so did medieval serfdom, which provided sustenance for those subject to the land. Even when lyres start playing themselves and looms start spinning themselves, human wants will never cease. It is the hallmark of a great nation that it uses the advancements of government, of artists, and scientists to improve the general welfare, the summum bonum, and not insulate it from them. If man is condemned to labour as his lot, then he must be able to do so with dignity and without exploitation: that is the hallmark of a great nation.