Aristotle on Causality, The Four Causes

http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/causes.jpg

To be able to give a rational account of constant change in the realm of natural beings
and consequently to lay ground for physics as an explanatory potent science Aristotle
introduces a scheme of causal relations.

Nature itself is a principle and a cause of change. But we speak about the cause with
regard to four different points of reference each pointing to one aspect of the more
general question "why something is".

To ask "why something is" means to identify main factors in the process of potentiality
realization. Aristotle explicates this question in a fourfold way:

1. Out of what has a Answer obtained by

thing come? identifying: The Material
 Cause:

The material cause points to "that from

which, as a constituent, an object comes into
being." (For instance, the bronze of a
statue.)

Answer obtained by
2. What is it?
identifying: The Formal Cause:

The formal cause embodies the essential

nature (all essential attributes) and
represents the model or archetype of the
outcome; conceptually it is expressed in the
definition (logos). (It is the idea of the statue
as present in artist's head.)

3. By means of what Answer obtained by

is it? identifying: The Efficient Cause:

The efficient cause is "the source of the

change or rest"; it is the moving cause:
"what makes of what is made and what
changes of what is changed" (the sculptor
who makes the statue).
4. For the sake of Answer obtained by
what is it? identifying: The Final Cause:

The final cause states "that for the sake of

which" a thing is done, or, in other words, it
explicates something's end (the final shape
or the effect on the audience which admires
the statue).
Note: Although Aristotle himself holds all these four causes responsible for any real
change and movement (aitia in Greek are those things that are "guilty" or responsible for
something), they are rather demarcation points of change as revealed in our language than
true causes (with a possible exception of the efficient cause, which is nowadays
considered to be the only real cause out of the four). In difference to the modern concept
of causation, which always implies a sequence of two events, Aristotle envisions
causation as a single event of double actualization: agent's potential to effectuate
something and patient's potential to sustain that change.
Meaning of "cause"[edit]
Aristotle's word for "cause" is the Greek , aition, a neuter, singular form of an adjective meaning
"responsible."[5] He uses this word in the sense meaning an explanation for how a thing came about;[6] in this
context, "x is the aition of y" means "x makes a y".

Material cause[edit]
The material cause of an object is equivalent to the nature of the raw material out of which the object is
composed. (The word "nature" for Aristotle applies to both its potential in the raw material and its ultimate
finished form. In a sense this form already existed in the material. See Potentiality and actuality.)
Whereas modern physics looks to simple bodies, Aristotle's physics instead treated living things as exemplary.
However, he felt that simple natural bodies such as earth, fire, air, and water also showed signs of having their
own innate sources of motion, change, and rest. Fire, for example, carries things upwards, unless stopped from
doing so. Things like beds and cloaks, formed by human artifice, have no innate tendency to become beds or
cloaks.[7]
In Aristotelian terminology, material is not the same as substance. Matter has parallels with substance in so far
as primary matter serves as the substratum for simple bodies which are not substance: sand and rock (mostly
earth), rivers and seas (mostly water), atmosphere and wind (mostly air and then mostly fire below the moon).
Only individuals are said to be substance (subjects) in the primary sense. Secondary substance, in a different
sense, also applies to man-made artifacts.

Formal cause[edit]
Formal cause is a term describing the pattern or form which when present makes matter into a particular type
of thing, which we recognize as being of that particular type.
By Aristotle's own account, this is a difficult and controversial concept. It is associated with theories of
forms such as those of Aristotle's teacher, Plato, but in Aristotle's own account (see hisMetaphysics), he takes
into account many previous writers who had expressed opinions about forms and ideas, but he shows how his
own views are different.
See also Platonic realism.

Efficient cause[edit]
The "efficient cause" of an object is equivalent to that which causes change and motion to start or stop (such as
a painter painting a house) (see Aristotle, Physics II 3, 194b29). In many cases, this is simply the thing that
brings something about. For example, in the case of a statue, it is the person chiseling away which transforms a
block of marble into a statue.

Final cause[edit]
Main article: Teleology
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something. Like the formal cause, this is a
controversial type of cause in science. It is commonly claimed that Aristotle's conception of nature is
teleological in the sense that he believed that Nature has goals apart from those that humans have. On the other
hand, as will be discussed further below, it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be
present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence. An example of a passage which is
discussed in this context isPhysics II.8 (from
This is most obvious in the animals other than man: they make things neither by art nor after inquiry or
deliberation. That is why people wonder whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty that these
creatures work, spiders, ants, and the like... It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do
not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would
produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature.[8]
For example, according to Aristotle a seed has the eventual adult plant as its final cause (i.e., as its telos) if and
only if the seed would become the adult plant under normal circumstances.[9]In Physics II.9, Aristotle hazards a
few arguments that a determination of the final cause of a phenomenon is more important than the others. He
argues that the final cause is the cause of that which brings it about, so for example "if one defines the
operation of sawing as being a certain kind of dividing, then this cannot come about unless the saw has teeth of
a certain kind; and these cannot be unless it is of iron."[10] According to Aristotle, once a final cause is in place,
the material, efficient and formal causes follow by necessity. However he recommends that the student of
nature determine the other causes as well,[11] and notes that not all phenomena have a final cause, e.g., chance
events.[12]
George Holmes Howison, in "The Limits of Evolution", highlights "final causation" in presenting his theory of
metaphysics, which he terms "personal idealism", and to which he invites not only man, but all (ideal) life; at
p. 39:
Here, in seeing that Final Cause causation at the call of self-posited aim or end is the only full and genuine
cause, we further see that Nature, the cosmic aggregate of phenomena and the cosmic bond of their law which
in the mood of vague and inaccurate abstraction we call Force, is after all only an effect. ... Thus teleology, or
the Reign of Final Cause, the reign of ideality, is not only an element in the notion Evolution, but is the very
vital cord in the notion. The conception of evolution is founded at last and essentially in the conception of
Progress: but this conception has no meaning at all except in the light of a goal; there can be no goal unless
there is a Beyond for everything actual; and there is no such Beyond except through a spontaneous ideal. The
presupposition of Nature, as a system undergoing evolution, is therefore the causal activity of our Pure Ideals.
These are our three organic and organizing conceptions called the True, the Beautiful, and the Good.
However, Edward Feser argues, in line with the Aristotelian and Aquinian tradition, that finality has been
greatly misunderstood. Indeed, without finality, efficient causality becomes inexplicable. Finality thus
understood is not purpose but that end towards which a thing is ordered. When a match is rubbed against the
side of a matchbox, the effect is not the appearance of an elephant or the sounding of a drum, but fire. The
effect is not arbitrary because the match is ordered towards the end of fire which is realized through efficient
causes.[13]

The four causes in modern science[edit]

See also: Teleology Teleology and science
Francis Bacon wrote in his Advancement of Learning (1605) that natural science "doth make inquiry, and take
consideration of the same natures : but how? Only as to the material and efficient causes of them, and not as to
the forms." According to the demands of Bacon, apart from the "laws of nature" themselves, the causes
relevant to natural science are only efficient causes and material causes in terms of Aristotle's classification, or
to use the formulation which became famous later, all nature visible to human science is matter and motion.
Using the terminology of Aristotle, he divided knowledge into physics and metaphysics in The New Organon.
From the two kinds of axioms which have been spoken of arises a just division of philosophy and the sciences,
taking the received terms (which come nearest to express the thing) in a sense agreeable to my own views.
Thus, let the investigation of forms, which are (in the eye of reason at least, and in their essential law) eternal
and immutable, constitute Metaphysics; and let the investigation of the efficient cause, and of matter, and of
the latent process, and the latent configuration (all of which have reference to the common and ordinary course
of nature, not to her eternal and fundamental laws) constitute Physics. And to these let there be subordinate
two practical divisions: to Physics, Mechanics; to Metaphysics, what (in a purer sense of the word) I call
Magic, on account of the broadness of the ways it moves in, and its greater command over nature. Francis
Bacon The New Organon, Book II, Aphorism 9, 1620
It has been argued that explanations in terms of final causes remain common in modern science, including
contemporary evolutionary biology,[14][15] and that teleology is indispensable to biology in general for (among
other reasons) the very concept of adaptation is teleological in nature.[15] In an appreciation of Charles
Darwin published in Nature in 1874, Asa Gray noted "Darwin's great service to Natural Science" lies in
bringing back Teleology "so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded
to Teleology". Darwin quickly responded, "What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not
think anyone else has ever noticed the point."[14] Francis Darwin and T. H. Huxley reiterate this sentiment. The
latter wrote that "..the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the
reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view
offers."[14] James G. Lennox states that Darwin uses the term 'Final Cause' consistently in his Species
Notebook, Origin of Species and after.[16]
Ernst Mayr states that "adaptedness... is a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking."[17] Various
commentators view the teleological phrases used in modern evolutionary biology as a type of shorthand. For
example, S. H. P. Madrell writes that "the proper but cumbersome way of describing change by evolutionary
adaptation [may be] substituted by shorter overtly teleological statements" for the sake of saving space, but
that this "should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising
by chance, with those that impart an advantage being retained by natural selection."[18] However, Lennox states
that in evolution as conceived by Darwin, it is true both that evolution is the result of mutations arising by
chance and that evolution is teleological in nature.[14]
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order
to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences
to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to
rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in
a way which can be read as implying teleology even if that is not the intention.

The four causes in technology by Heidegger[edit]

In The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger explains the four causes as follows:

1. causa materialis is the material or matter

2. causa formalis is the form or shape the material or matter enters
3. causa finalis is the end
4. causa efficiens is the effect that is finished.
Upon explaining them in this formal state as well as with the example of a silver challis, Heidegger raises the
questions of why just these four causes, how was it determined that they exclusively go together, what exactly
unifies them and what makes causa finalis and causa efficiens different. These are important questions to
analyze and attempt to answer or else the definition of technology will remain obscure. He explains the
necessity of the four causes as they allow for the material or matter is not present a path to become present.
Heidegger argues that the ability to create a final product using these four steps is what unifies them as an
exclusive group.
This group of causes arrives Heidegger at poiesis: the bringing forth of something out of itself. He states
that poiesis is the highest form of physis. Heidegger states that the four causes are at play in the bringing forth
process of bursting open to the next artisan or creator. This process of bringing forth is revealing truth
or aletheia, a key function of technology. Heidegger explains it as thus:
"Whoever builds a house or a ship or forges a sacrificial chalice reveals what is to be brought forth, according
to the terms of the four modes of occasioning.[19]"
Notice the word "reveals" instead of manufacturing as Heidegger argues that manufacturing is not what brings
forth a material but the actual reveal. Technology is the mode of revealing which gives truth, aletheia.
Highlighted is the issue of social and technological progress along with society with the four causes. One of
his examples is the words through translation from the language of the Greeks, Romans and to today have
created some issues with the definitions of these words. Most notably he emphasizes the need to clarify the
difference between words that now have different meaning through these translations. In particular he uses the
words responsible and indebted as they relate to the four causes and the creation process. Also used is the
term techne which means technology now but it also was the word used for the revealing which brings forth
truth into the splendor of radiant appearance.[20] Within Greece, techne also meant art as it required the
revealing and presenting the appearance of the work of art. The word aletheia was replaced by the Romans
with veritas. Another issue arising with progress of technology and society is the techniques. Heidegger
presents the argument that even though these Greek ideas work with techniques of handicraftsmen, they are
essentially outdated with modern machine powered technology as they are based on modern physics. The
problem is the modern physical theory of nature prepares for simple and modern technology. Technology,
physics and ancient philosophy may require some adaptation to new circumstances such as modern machine
powered technology but they can continue to be useful, relevant and active.

See also[edit]
Anthropic principle
Causality
Convergent evolution
Four discourses, by Jacques Lacan
Proximate and ultimate causation
Teleology
The purpose of a system is what it does, Anthony Stafford Beer's
POSIWID principle
Tinbergen's four questions
Socrates

Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ Aristotle, Physics 194 b1720; see also: Posterior
Analytics 71 b911; 94 a20.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Four Causes". Falcon, Andrea. Aristotle on
Causality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008.
3. Jump up^ Lindberg, David. The Beginnings of Western Science (1992).
p53
4. Jump up^ Aristotle, "Book 5, section 1013a", Metaphysics, Translated
by Hugh Tredennick Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols. 17, 18, Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1933,
1989; (hosted at perseus.tufts.edu.) Aristotle also discusses the four
causes in his Physics, Book B, chapter 3.
5. Jump up^ original text on Perseus
6. Jump up^ Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. By
Douglas J. Soccio. Page 161.
7. Jump up^ Physics 192b
8. Jump up^ The Complete Works of Aristotle Vol. I. The Revised Oxford
Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes).
9. Jump up^ This example is given by Aristotle in Parts of Animals I.1.
 10. Jump up^ Aristotle, Physics II.9. 200b47.
11. Jump up^ Aristotle, Physics II.9.
12. Jump up^ Physics II.5 where chance is opposed to nature, which he has
already said acts for ends.
13. Jump up^ Aquinas, Edward Feser.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lennox, James G. (1993). "Darwin was a
Teleologist" Biology and Philosophy, 8, 40921.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b Ayala, Francisco (1998). "Teleological explanations in
evolutionary biology." Nature's purposes: Analyses of Function and
Design in Biology. The MIT Press.
16. Jump up^ Lennox, James G. (1993). "Darwin was a Teleologist" Biology
and Philosophy, 8, p. 410.
17. Jump up^ Mayr, Ernst W. (1992). "The idea of teleology" Journal of the
History of Ideas, 53, 117135.
18. Jump up^ Madrell SHP (1998) Why are there no insects in the open
sea? The Journal of Experimental Biology 201:24612464.
19. Jump up^ Heidegger, Martin. ed. Krell, D. F. (1977). The Question
Concerning Technology. Basic Writings. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers. 295.
20. Jump up^ Heidegger, Martin. ed. Krell, D. F. (1977). The Question
Concerning Technology. Basic Writings. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers. 315.

References[edit]
Cohen, Marc S. "The Four Causes" (Lecture Notes) Accessed March 14,
2006.
Falcon, Andrea. Aristotle on Causality (link to section labeled "Four
Causes"). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008.
Hennig, Boris. "The Four Causes." Journal of Philosophy 106(3), 2009,
13760.
Moravcsik, J.M. "Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle's philosophy."
Dialogue, 14 : pp 622638, 1975.
English translation of Study on Phideas, by Pa Figueroa written with
theme of Final Cause as per Aristotle [1] PDF file with references

External links[edit]
The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our
World, By R. C. Sproul
Aristotle on definition. By Marguerite Deslauriers, page 81
Philosophy in the ancient world: an introduction. By James A. Arieti.
p201.
Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics. By Joseph Owens and
Etienne Gilson.
Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle's philosophy*
A Compass for the Imagination, by Harold C. Morris. Philosophy thesis
elaborates on Aristotle's Theory of the Four Causes. Washington State
University, 1981.
Categories:
 Aristotle
Causality
Concepts in metaphysics
Navigation menu
Create account

Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Go

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages

Espaol
Esperanto

Franais

 Slovenina

Edit links
This page was last modified on 11 November 2014 at 13:33.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional
terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.



principle (pr n s -p l)
n.
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.
a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather
than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: th
e principle of self-preservation.
5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the pr
inciple of jet propulsion.
6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some spe
cial quality or effect.
7. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal.
Idioms:
in principle
With regard to the basics: an idea that is acceptable in principle.
on principle
According to or because of principle.

Historical or Evolutionary Theory of State Essay

by Rehaan Bansal

The State is, as Garner said, neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force,
nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family.

The State is, as Garner said, neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force,
nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family.

It is an institution of natural growth which originated in the bare needs of the life of man and
continues in existence for the sake of good life.
The theory which explains, and is now accepted as a convincing origin of the State, is the Historical
or Evolutionary Theory. It explains that the State is the product of growth, a slow and steady
evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately shaping itself into the complex structure
of a modem State.

Burgess has aptly said that the State is a continuous development of human society out of a grossly
imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and
universal organisation of mankind.

It is difficult to say how and when the State came into existence. Like all other social institutions, it
must have emerged imperceptibly, supported by various influences and conditions.

Apart from the influences of physical environment and geographical conditions, there are five
important factors which made men to aggregate at different places and separated one group from
another, thereby paving the way for the rise and growth of the State. These important factors are:

1. Kinship;

2. Religion;

3. Property and defence;

4. Force;

5. Political consciousness.

It must, however, be remembered that not any one of these influences has worked in isolation from
others in the process of State building. They operated in various combinations, each playing its part
in creating that unity and organisation that the State requires.

1. Kinship:
The earliest form of social organisation was based upon blood relationship and kinship was the first
and the strongest bond of unity. What bound people together and made them cohere into a group
was the belief in common descent and the earliest and closest unit of kinship was the family.

It is, of course, a disputed point whether tribe, group or family came first, yet it cannot be denied that
family constituted the first link in the process of the evolution of the State, and government must
have begun in a clearly defined family discipline; command and obedience. Even the advocates of
the Matriarchal Theory ultimately veer round to the family and recognise the authority of the
patriarch.

With the expansion of the family arose new families and the multiplication of families led to the
formation of clans and tribes. Throughout the process of this evolution sanction of kinship was the
only factor which bound the people together.

Persons unconnected by ties of blood, unless admitted into the tribe by adoption, were deemed
strangers and treated as enemies. The name of the common ancestor was the symbol of kinship.
The magic of names, as Maclver sums up, reinforced the sense of kinship, as the course of
generations enlarged the group.

The blood bond of sonship changed imperceptibly into the social bond of the wider brotherhood. The
authority of the father passed into the power of the chief. Once more under the aegis of kinship new
forms arose which transcended it.

Kinship created society and society at length created the state. The origin of the political activity of
man is, therefore, embedded in Aristotles cogent remark that man is a social and political animal.

It is, then, clear that the germs of government must have begun in clearly defined family discipline
and the patriarch evoked respect and obedience to authority. The authority of the father of the family
over its members was complete, absolute and undisputed.

The patriarch, who afterwards became the tribal chieftain, combined unto himself religious,
administrative, judicial and military powers. This is the evidence of history.

2. Religion:
Closely connected with kinship, as a factor in State-building, is religion. Kinship and religion in the
primitive society were two aspects of the same thing and both acted simultaneously in welding
together families and tribes. Religion was the sign and seal of common blood, the expression of its
oneness, its sanctity, its obligation.

When the bonds of kinship steadily weakened with the expansion of the family into the gens, the
clans and the tribes, a common form of worship reinforced the sense of unity and respect for
authority.
The primitive religion evolved from animism to ancestor-worship. The early man was surrounded by
natural phenomena which he could not understand. He looked towards natural forces, such as
storms, thunder and lightning, clouds and wind, the sun, moon and stars with awe and reverence.

The changing seasons and the birth and death of vegetation made him stand aghast. To his
innocent mind and uncultivated intellect the mystery of death and other psychological problems, like
sleep, dreams and insanity, were insoluble. He interpreted all such phenomena as manifestation of
some supernatural power.

What he could not understand, he began to worship. He saw God in clouds and heard him in the
wind. Under such conditions emerged two forms of religion, worship of nature, and worship of
ancestors. The hallowed ceremonies of ancestor worship were conducted at the family altar.

There the living came into the presence of their great dead, the spirits of the departed, who
exercised power to evil as well as to good and who must be appeased by the meticulous
performance of sacred rites. In this way, came to be established a family of deities around which
abundant traditions and myths came to be formed.

Ancestor-worship, thus, strengthened the bonds of family union which eventually contributed to the
solidarity of the tribe. But these bonds were only local in character. When tribes expanded by
incorporation or conquest, kinship and ancestor-worship proved weak ties of union among the
diverse people spread over extended territory.

Common belief in gods and deities, or worship of nature became the cementing bond of affinity and
comradeship among such people, although remnants of the old family worship and legends of tribal
heroes still formed a common national religion that served as a sanction of government and law.

The sanction of law in primitive society was religion and, as it was the terrible aspect of religion that
appealed to primitive minds, the breaking of law was followed by terrible punishment. This is how the
relation of command and obedience, which was natural in family relations, was definitely established
by religion.

Side by side grew up superstitions and magical customs. In primitive communities magical rites and
incantations were practised both privately and publicly. Anyone who could propitiate the spirits
began to acquire commanding importance and unique influence. He was looked upon with awe and
reverence and all bowed to his authority, since none could dare incur the wrath of the magic-man.
The sorcerer became the leader and it is here that we witness the emergence of magician-kings.
From magician the step to chief or king was simple. Magicians gave way to priests, when people had
lost faith in the spirits and the power of magic.

The priests, too, came into eminence in the same way as the magicians. The evidence available
sufficiently shows that early kings were priest- kings, combining the duties of ceremonial
observances and secular rule. The rise of the magician and of his kingly successor has been the
special thesis of Sir James G. Frazer.

According to Frazers theory, the first form of tribal government was the gerontocracy or council of
old men, representing the various families constituting the tribe. Their control over the tribe was
perfect and complete as they alone were deemed to be familiar with the secret mysteries of the tribal
religion, and they alone were considered eminently competent to know all that could be known about
the spiritual world.

Out of the council of elders emerged the magician, a resolute and ambitious man, a clever and
unscrupulous man, who pretended to extraordinary powers of divination and sorcery.

The fertility of the soil, rain or drought, the success or failure of crops seemed to depend more upon
his incantations and rituals than upon human effort. His influence, especially among an agricultural
people, assumed enormous proportions. The magician eventually made himself priest-king.

Briefly, the value of religion in the evolution of the State can hardly be denied. In primitive society
religion and politics were inextricably mixed up. Religion not only helped the unification of political
communities, but it was religion alone which was responsible for subordinating barbaric anarchy and
for teaching reverence and obedience.

The importance of religion, as a force in the evolution of the State, was not limited to the earliest
States alone. In Afghanistan religion has, even now much to do with politics. Islamic law is a force
behind Pakistan, the Islamic Republic.

Twenty-three Muslim theologists of Pakistan jointly pronounced a verdict (fatwa) against the election
of a woman as the President or Khalifa of an Islamic State, when Miss Fatima Jinnah declared her
intention to oppose President Ayub Khan in the Presidential election in 1964.

Although a secular State, yet in India, too, religion still plays an important part in the political life of
the country. Indias political life is demarcated more on religion than on political issues.
The legacy of religion in the political life of the country is found even in Britain as in the religious
coronation of Kings or Queens and the still-half-consciously lingering view of law and of State
commands as something sacred. The tradition of the divine origin of political power dies hard.

3. Property and Defence:

In order to understand the origin of the State and government we must observe how the kinship
group earned its living. The basic factor in any given society, says Laski, is the way it earns its
living all social relations are built upon provision for those primary material appetites without
satisfying which life cannot endure.

And an analysis of society will always reveal the close connection between its institutions and culture
and the methods of satisfying material appetites. As these methods change, so also will the
institutions and culture of the society change?

Changes in the methods of economic production appear to be the most vital factor in the making of
changes in all other social patterns we know. For changes in those methods detuning the changes of
social relationships; and these, in their turn, are subtly interwoven with all the cultural habits of men.
The key to social behaviour must, therefore, be sought in the economic system.

Among primitive peoples there were successive economic stages that marked the growing
importance of property and that brought about corresponding changes in social organisation.

The three economic stages are the huntsman stage, the herdsman or pastoral stage and the
husbandman or agricultural stage. They are universal stages in the sense that groups generally
passed from the one to the other, from lower to higher.

The huntsman led a miserable existence, moving about in quest of game and of wild berries or roots.
He had no property except the crude weapons and tools. It was a condition of primeval savagely and
escape came through the domestication of wild animals.

The domestic animals, originally kept as pets, proved a good way to provide against future periods
of scarcity. Still later, it became apparent that the animals were useful for other purposes besides
supplying meat in times of privation.

The horse provided rapid means of movement, the cow provided milk and the sheep wool. He had
also come to know that his flocks and herds could be vastly increased by systematic breeding. A
huntsman became a herdsman and flocks and herds became his wealth. Simultaneously, other
forms of property, for example, improved clothing, weapons, and domestic utensils, appeared.

Whatever may have been the earlier form of the family, pastoral life, which is marked with
substantial property interests, increased the social dominance of the male. It strengthened, if it did
not create, the patriarchate. The patriarch exercised absolute control over the family, and over all its
property.

When the family expanded into the gens and the tribe, the patriarchal discipline prepared the way for
tribal government. Property introduced all sorts of complications. There must reside sufficient power
with the tribal authorities to settle property disputes between different families, and to regulate and
safeguard the rights of ownership.

Thus, the gradual increase of property entailed a corresponding intensification of social control.
Tribesmen, who were accustomed to giving unquestioning obedience to their respective family
heads, accepted the authority of the Council of Elders and of the chieftain who rose out of the
Council.

At the same time, organised force was needed to repel the plundering raids of adjacent tribes.
Concerted action for common defence against the hostile designs of others strengthened the
solidarity of the tribe and increased the authority of the tribal organisation.

The saying war begat the king is, according to Gettell, at least a half truth, since military activity
was a powerful force, both in creating the need for authority and law, and in replacing family
organisations by system purely political.

These conditions called for individual leadership. Some member of the Council of Elders or
patriarchs, whose personal qualities, such as, military prowess, knowledge of human nature,
oratorical capacity, with or without the assistance of religious superstitions, pushed his way to the
front and raised himself far above his peers in prestige and influence. Tribesmen rallied round him
and he was recognised as the chieftain.

Since the qualities of leadership were likely to be inherited, the office of the chieftain became
attached to a particular family and was transmitted like other forms of property. Generally, it passed
on to the eldest member of the family, though, in times of unusual stress, when war or domestic
violence threatened, the office went not to the eldest, but to the most competent of the chiefly
lineage.
The institution of private property and its systematic development, thus, brought the nomadic
herdsman to the threshold of the State. The State must possess the element of territoriality.
Although the pastoral tribes confined their wanderings within roughly determined geographical limits,
they were still nomads. The State came into existence when the people became permanently
territorially settled.

The territorial State did not appear until population began to press upon subsistence. The herdsman
needed much more land than the husbandman. As the pastoral tribe grew in numbers and flocks
and herds multiplied, one of the two courses became imminent to follow: either new land might be
acquired by migration or the old land put to more productive use.

Fertile pastures, when brought under cultivation, could support a bigger population, and the
tribesmen had long been experimenting with agriculture, with as crude methods as their tools.
Rather than leave the region to which they had become attached, they supplemented their prevailing
pastoral economy with the rudiments of agriculture. Gradually the herdsman became husbandman.

The transition took place slowly, as, by trial and error of by the imitation of some neighbouring
agriculturists the methods of tillage are improved and their potentialities realised. When a pastoral
kinship group settled on the land, the State began.

The group had already set up a government; it acquired territoriality as well. The three elements of
the State are: people; government and territory. When three had been attained, search for the fourth,
sovereignty, followed.

Along with the new system of production, that is, agriculture, came great social changes. The first
was, sharpening of class distinctions with the unequal distribution of wealth. The rise of social
classes occurred in pastoral society and they were perpetuated in agricultural society. Besides
nobles and commoners, there were slaves.

When one tribe attacked the other, the captives were no longer killed and perhaps eaten. The
pastoralist had plenty to eat, but felt the need of supplementing the labour resources of the family to
care for the expanding herd and to protect it from beasts of prey and human marauders. He invented
slavery as a substitute for cannibalism. It was a beneficent invention and in the agricultural society
systematic resort was made to slavery.

4. Force:
The new system also placed a great emphasis upon military life, first for defence, then for conquest.
It is often contended that the State began in conquest when the herdsmen conquered the
husbandmen or peasants.

The conquest theory is favourably received by the Sociologists. Oppenheimer, the most prominent
advocate of this theory, maintains that the cause of the genesis of all States is the contact between
peasants and herdsmen, between labourers and robbers, between bottom lands and prairies.

The conquest theory does not explain the origin of the State. But the part played by warfare in
moulding political institutions at any stage of human development cannot be discounted, more so in
a primitive society. Private property, in the form of flocks and herds, afforded a strong incentive to
looting, which in turn had to be checked by systematic defence and punitive expeditions against
hostile tribes.

Concerted action for common defence and chastisement of the warring tribes created the dire need
for military leadership which was an important factor in creating the chieftainship and strengthening
its powers.

The office of the chieftain became hereditary and consequently it led to the establishment of the
monarchy. Yet, the emergence of the State, as Maclver says, and he is supported by the weight of
evidence, is not due to force, although in the process of expansion force undoubtedly played a
part.

5. Political Consciousness:
The last is political consciousness arising from the fundamental needs of life for protection and
order. When the people settle down on a definite territory in pursuit of their subsistence and a desire
to secure it from encroachment by others, the need for regulating things and persons is felt
imminently and this is the essence of political consciousness.

It is doubtful whether there was ever a conscious expression for such a need. But there is no
denying the fact that the institution of private property and the requirements of self-defence, both
from within and without the tribe, and consequently the emergence of military leadership was
probably the first distinctive political authority to which the people ungrudgingly submitted.

This military leader commanded the confidence of his people and he established some sort of
political organisation, i.e., government, to meet the needs of protection and order. In some such way
the State arose. People, territory, government and independence from others or sovereignty, as we
describe it now, had come in.

Much of this, which we present as a regular process, was, of course, very slow and confused. The
course of events must have also varied with the character and circumstances of each people. All the
same, the spirit of organisation, as Woodrow Wilson says, Is natural twin born with man and the
family. In its simple and rudimentary form germs of governmental organisation were found in the
family discipline.

Religion reinforced family discipline and gradually created the wider discipline necessary for the
existence of the State. Custom was the first law and there was a religious sanction behind every
custom and the magicians who controlled religious sanctions were more powerful than any agent of
political authority.

When human wants, economic, social and political, increased through the combination of diverse
circumstances and conditions, the State, territorially established and forming a distinct group of
people independent of others, became more complex in form, more universal in its range of
activities, more indispensable to the needs of mankind.

The distinction we now make so carefully between the State and society is of comparatively recent
origin. In fact, a double process had been at work through all these centuries: one by which the State
takes over powers hitherto enjoyed by society, and the other by which it abandons to society powers
it no longer needs.

Notes on the historical or evolutionary theory

regarding the origin of the State
ANKITA

Various theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some philosophers assert
that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement between the people and the sovereign.
There are others who feel that it is the direct result of force.

There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a magnified image of the
family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious and have little truth in them.

This led Garner to remark that the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior
physical force, nor the creation of a contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of
growth and evolution. The state did not come into existence abruptly.

It has developed from its crude and simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the
words of Leacock, "the state is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running
through out all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past."
To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The
historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long
period. Various factors have contributed to its development. These may be discussed as follows:

1. Social instinct:

Aristotle simply stated a fact when he remarked: "Man is by nature a social animal." The germs of
social life are laid in the very nature of man. It is this elemental instinct which prompted primitive
people to live together in groups.

The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state is
even primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus natural
outcome of very social nature of man.

2. Kinship:

The social instinct of man was supplemented by kinship or blood relationship. The earliest human
organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Blood relationship was the most
important bond of union among the primitive people.

It knit together clans and groups and gave them unity and cohesion. The people who had their origin
in a common ancestor lived together in separate social units. Those who could not establish any
blood relationship were treated as enemies. Even today, we see various castes and sub-castes.

In sociological sense they have their origin in common ancestor and caste is still known by the name
of that original ancestor.

There is a good deal of controversy among political thinkers as to what the form of social
organization was in the primitive ages. Certain philosophers assert that tribes and matriarchal
families were the ancient social organizations. Others contend that the most primary social group
was a patriarchal family.

Regardless of this controversy Dr. Leacock remarked, "here it may be matriarchal family, there it
may be patriarchal family, but there is no denying the fact that the family is at basis of the state.

" Seeds of the state are found in rigid family discipline. It is in the family that a relationship between
command and obedience is established. A family represents the figure of a state in miniature. All the
for factors essential for the formation of the state are seen in their diminutive form in the family.

The members of the family constitute the population Home is the territory. The patriarch or the head
of the family forms the government with sovereign power over its members. Hence the justification
of Aristotle's remark "State is the magnified image of the family.

" The original family gradually expanded and developed into a household or a 'gen'. The gens by
further multiplications developed into clans and clans united to form tribes. The bond throughout
was kinship and persons unconnected by blood relationship could not become members of a tribe
unless as a special case one was admitted by adoption.

In a tribe, the head of the oldest or the strongest clan became the ruler generally called the 'Chief and
his name became the symbol of 'kinship.' In the words of MacIver, 'Kinship created society and
society at length created the state.!

3. Religion:
Religion has played a vital role in the process of the building up of the state. Religion gave unity to
the people both in the primitive and middle ages. As Gettle observes, "Kinship and religion were
simply two aspects of the same thing.

Common worship was even more essential than kinship subjecting the primitive man to authority
and discipline and to develop in him a keen sense of social solidarities and cohesion." Those outside
were regarded as stranger and even as enemies. People were thus united together under the
authority of the same religious sovereign.

Religion appeared in the world in different forms at different stages of history. In the very early
times, the prevalent religion of mankind was animismworship of animals, trees and stones. It was
later supplemented with ancestral worship. People descending from the same ancestors were thus
united together.

Later, religion appeared in the form of Nature worship. The Primitive men could not understand
such natural phenomena as storms, thunder and lightning, or the change of seasons! or the mystery
of birth and death. They had implicit faith in the spirits of the nature and the spirits of the dead.
They were afraid of the forces of nature. They worshipped them out of awe and reverence.

In subsequent ages, magician kings made their appearance. The magicians pretended that they could
propitiate the evil spirit. Thus taking advantage of the fear, ignorance and superstition of the
fellowmen, the magicians established their authority. In course of time, the magician kings gave way
to priest kings.

The priest kings remained popular till late in the middle ages. Religion came to be organized as a
regular institution. The Popes dominated the Christian world, the Caliphs established their authority
over the Muslim world, etc.

Whatever the form of religion, there is no denying the fact that religion gave unity to the people and
thus virtually helped in the process of state building.

4. Force:

Force also played an important part in the development of the state. In primitive ages, might was the
supreme right. A powerful person would rally round him a number of warriors and attack a certain
territory and would establish his domination over it. History is replete with records showing that big
states were formed by occupation and conquest through force.

The application of force also gave territoriality to modern states. War and migration were important
factors responsible for the establishment of various states. The demand for constant warfare often
led to the rise of permanent headman or chief.

When a tribe was threatened by danger of war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader if there
was none. The continuation of war was conducive to the establishment of permanent leadership.

When a leader established his authority over a certain territory by conquest and over the people with
whom he had no blood relationship, all those who lived in that territory became his subjects. Kinship
remained no longer a bond of unity.

5. Economic:

Man has unlimited wants. He cannot satisfy them alone. He has to depend upon others to satisfy his
needs. So there is always give and take in society. Man is both selfish and selfless.

There are always disputes. State is born to regulate the economic relations between man and man.
6. Political consciousness:

The sixth factor which contributed to the growth and development of the state was the slow rise of
political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends of political consciousness. It
implies the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization.

At first the state came into existence merely as an idea, that is, it appeared in a subjective form,
without being a physical fact. In course of time, the supreme importance of maintaining peace and
order within the community and defending the country against any external aggression was felt. It is
here that political consciousness appears in the real form.

As Kilson put it, "The need for order and security is an ever present factor; man knows instinctively
that he can develop the best of which he is capable only by some form of political organization.

At the beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political
unconsciousness but just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of
gravitation, political organization really rested on the community of minds, unconscious, dimly
conscious or fully conscious of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of
development.'

With the growth of civilization and march of time, man has added to his needs. He requires the
cooperation of a large number of persons for the satisfaction of his wants. This, too, is no less an
incentive for leading a regulated life in his state.

We may conclude with Burgess that the state is the gradual and continuous development of human
society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation
towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.

The historical theory of the origin of the state contains the best elements of the other theories of
origin of the state. It recognizes the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human nature
has a tendency towards political existence.

It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has been
responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggests that consent on the
part of the individual in the form of political consciousness has played an important part in the
organization of the state.

The Patriarchal and the Matriarchal theories suggest that kinship played a prominent role in the
evolution of the state.

Points to Remember

Various fallacious theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. A state is, in fact,
a slow process of growth and evolution. Various factors have contributed to its development.

1. Social instinct:

Man is a social animal. Social instinct is deeply embedded in him. This instinct is to a great extent
responsible for the development of the State.

2. Kihship:

The earliest organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Family lies at the root of the
state. There is a controversy as to what sort of families were found in the primitive ages.
 3. Religion:

Religion has contributed a lot to the process of state building. It gave unity to the primitive people.
Religion appeared in

various forms at different stages of history.

4. Force:

Force has also contributed to the process of state- building. History is replete with instances of big
states having been formed by occupation and conquest.

5. Political consciousness:

Man has multifarious needs for which he depends upon the co-operation and help of others. This
consciousness of self-insufficiency compels him to live in the state.

You May Also Like:

Notes on the theory of Social Contract with special reference to Locke
The demand and supply side of the modern theory of rent explained