Theme Panel: Aristotle’s Afterlives: Receptions of the Philosopher during Political Crises

July 2, 2025 APSA Annual Meeting, Theme Panels Comments Off on Theme Panel: Aristotle’s Afterlives: Receptions of the Philosopher during Political Crises

In-Person Full Paper Panel

Participants:

  • (Discussant) Abigail Marie Thomas, University of Texas-Austin
  • (Discussant) Michael Promisel, Catholic University of America
  • (Chair) Susan D. Collins, University of Notre Dame

Session Description:

An unparalleled influence on European thought, Aristotle was a prime target of criticism during the intellectual and political upheavals of early modern Europe. Yet, as we have gained distance from Aristotelianism in recent centuries, his writings have resurfaced as a source of unorthodox insights for understanding, critiquing, and reimagining political life amidst contemporary crises. This panel explores both the potential insights Aristotle can offer to those grappling with contemporary challenges—such as the rise of populist politics and shifting conceptions of gender identity—and the trajectory of Aristotelian moral and political thought in the early modern period, particularly during the Protestant Reformation.

The first two papers analyze contemporary populist politics through Aristotelian lenses. Armando Perez-Gea’s “Aristotle’s Craftsman: Should Lifelong Businessmen Hold Political Office?” considers the rising influence of businessmen in American politics, with figures like Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy. Aristotle’s argument that craftsmen should not hold office due to the deleterious effects of their occupation is familiar to many scholars. However, Perez-Gea highlights a neglected concern in Aristotle: exclusively exercising one kind of rule makes exercising another kind of rule difficult. In the American context, he argues that the rule over individuals who alienated their labor (arche oikonomike) is different in kind from the rule between free and equal citizens (arche politike). A lifelong experience as a businessman can undermine one’s aptitude to serve as a democratic official.

The second paper, Evelyn Behling’s “Aristotle, Populism, and Defining the Political Need for Expertise,” analyzes contemporary populism and anti-populism through Aristotle’s theory of stasis. Aristotle argues that regimes must balance the rule of the many and the few, integrating both “arithmetic” and “proportional” equality. Behling suggests that Aristotle supports roles for expertise in governance but warns against using inequality in one area to justify broader unqualified inequality, as this leads to democratic discontent. Aristotle also advises that the many must recognize the necessity of the few in order to maintain a just regime, offering a challenge to both populists and their critics.

The third paper critically examines contemporary gender trends through Aristotelian thought. Carol Kowara’s “Soft Girls and Trad Wives: Listening for Echoes of Aristotle in Viral Femininity” argues that while there are Aristotelian resonances in these two ideals, Aristotle’s writings on eudaimonia, friendship, and the household reveal significant flaws in both trends. Kowara critiques the “soft girl” ideal for lacking a robust conception of selfhood and the proper ends of human life, and the “trad wife” ideal for failing to recognize family life as a political relationship. She also highlights the hidden labor and wealth behind these trends. She closes by asking whether these trends offer a flawed representation of domestic excellence and non-economic living worth taking seriously.

The fourth paper examines how Aristotelianism contributed to the moral hierarchy that Martin Luther rejected in the 16th century. Haidun Liu’s “Teleology and Hierarchy between Aquinas and Luther” explores Aquinas’ often-misunderstood incorporation of supererogation into a teleological ethics, and how this concept underpinned an axiological hierarchy in which monastic life is superior to lay life, and spiritual pursuits superior to political pursuits. Liu then turns to Luther’s rejection of this hierarchy, and his replacement of the underlying Aristotelian teleology with his ethics of obedience and doctrine of vocation (Beruf). Surprisingly, Luther’s ethics of obedience serves an equalizing role, affirming the equal worth of individuals called to occupy societal stations that appear unequal.

The final paper offers a contrasting perspective on the Reformation’s engagement with Aristotle. Alexander Batson’s “Reconsidering Aristotle in the Reformation: Philip Melanchthon’s Aristotelian Political Philosophy” challenges the view that the Reformers rejected Aristotle, which is based on a narrow focus on a few of Luther’s writings. Batson shows that Aristotle was an essential part of the creation of a new Protestant moral philosophy in the aftermath of religious crisis, especially for the Lutheran theologian Philip Melanchthon, known as “the Ethicist of the Reformation”. Batson examines how he, through extensive commentaries on Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, crafted an Aristotelian Protestant moral philosophy that organized Aristotelian definitions of virtue, justice, and passion under recognizable Lutheran terms.