California Law Review Volume 82|Issue 2 Article 2 March 1994 Taking Aristotle Seriously: Republican-Oriented Legal Theory and the Moral Foundation of Deliberative Democracy Miriam Galston Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview Recommended Citation Miriam Galston,Taking Aristotle Seriously: Republican-Oriented Legal Theory and the Moral Foundation of Deliberative Democracy, 82 Calif. L. Rev. 329 (1994). Link to publisher version (DOI) https://doi.org/10.15779/Z387J0H This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the California Law Review at Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Law Review by an authorized administrator of Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taking Aristotle Seriously: Republican- Oriented Legal Theory and the Moral Foundation of Deliberative Democracy Miriam Galston TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Political Nature of Human Beings: Sacrifice or Self-Interest? ............. ................................. 339 A. Reliance on Aristotle's Statement About the Political Nature of Human Beings .............................. 340 B. The Meaning of "Nature" in Aristotle's Statement that Human Beings Are by Nature Political ................. 345 C. The Theoretical Basis for Aristotle's Statement that Human Beings Are by Nature Political ................. 349 D. Consequences of Aristotle's Interpretation of the Political Nature of Human Beings ...................... 353 II. Realizing Our Political Nature: The Approach of Contemporary Republican-Oriented Legal Theory ........... 354 A. Dialogue and the Scrutiny of Unexamined Opinion ..... 355 B. The Willingness to Talk, Listen, and Abide ............. 361 I. Realizing Our Political Nature: The Aristotelian Approach... 371 A. The Domain of Practical Reason for Aristotle and Contemporary Legal Theorists ......................... 371 B. The Dependency of Practical Reason on Character ...... 372 C. The Development of Good Character ................... 376 IV. The Consequences of Aristotle's Ideas for the Contemporary Deliberative Project ......................... 378 V. Aristotle's Reply to Contemporary Fears ................... 386 A. The Rational Capacity of Citizens ...................... 387 B. The Multiplicity of Human Types ...................... 391 Conclusion ...................................................... 396 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 82:329 19941 TAKING ARISTOTLE SERIOUSLY Taking Aristotle Seriously: Republican- Oriented Legal Theory and the Moral Foundation of Deliberative Democracy Miriam Galstont Contemporary legal theorists who voice civic republicano r communi- tarianc oncerns appealf requently to Aristotle's writings. Despite the care- fully reasoned and scholarly approacho f such theorists, they often rely on Aristotle in a perfunctory manner, treating isolated propositions in his works as philosophic catechisms. This is particularly ironic given Aristotle's own emphasis on the importance of contextual, as contrasted with abstract,a rgumentsf or political discourse. In this Article, the author begins the task of recoveringA ristotle in context. In particular,t he author focuses on one of the core concerns of republican-orientedl egal theory: creating a more deliberative or reflective political life. Analyzing Aristotle's views on the relationshipb etween charactera nd reason-inp ar- ticular, his belief that the ability of an individual to be rational or reason- able depends upon the presence of certain character traits-the author argues that communities must provide for the moral education of their members in order to make politics more deliberative. It is commonplace to exhort the reader to take things seriously.' Nonetheless it may appear superfluous to ask lawyers and law professors to Copyright © 1994 California Law Review, Inc. t Associate Professor, The George Washington University, National Law Center. B.A. Cornell University, 1967; Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1973; J.D. Yale Law School, 1982. The National Law Center has provided generous support for this project. I am also grateful to friends and colleagues who read earlier versions of this article for their wise counsel, especially Cheryl Block, Bill Galston, Philip Hamburger, Chip Lupu, Frank Michelman, Larry Mitchell, Tom Morgan, and Mark Tushnet. Debra Erenberg, Dina Gold, Wendy Hannon, and Mark Schultz provided valuable research assistance. This article is dedicated to the memory of Jack Steinberg, my father. 1. See WALTER BEANs, TAKNG THE CoNsTrrLUoN SEluousLY (1987); RONALD DwoRPM, TAKING Rioms SERIousLY (1977); McH.aE. W. McCAlN, TAKING REFORm SIuousLy: PERsPEcrIvEs oN PuBLic INTEREsT LmERAusM (1986); Akhil R. Amar, Taking Article Iff Seriously: A Reply to Professor Friedman, 85 Nw. U. L. REv. 442 (1991); Thomas M. Franck, Taking Treaties Seriously, 82 AM. J. INr'L L. 67 (1988); Stephen Gillers, Taking L.A. Law More Seriously, 98 YALE LJ. 1607 (1989); Neil Y. Komesar, Taking Institutions Seriously: Introduction to a Strategy for Constitutional Analysis, 51 U. Cm. L. Rav. 366 (1984); Reinier Kraakman, Taking Discounts Seriously: The Implications of "Discounted" Share Prices as an Acquisition Motive, 88 CoLuM. L. RE,. 891 (1988); Tracey Maclin, Justice Thurgood Marshall: Taking the FourthA mendment Seriously, 77 CORNELL L. Ray. 723 (1992); Aleksander Peczenik, Taking Laws Seriously, 68 CoRNEL L. Rv. 660 (1983); Robin West, The Supreme Court, 1989 Term-Foreword: Taking Freedom Seriously, 104 HARv. L. R-v. 43 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 82:329 take Aristotle seriously. Law review articles,2 the Supreme Court,3 and other federal4 and state5 courts have cited Aristotle and his views hundreds of times. Legal scholars have appealed to Aristotle in connection with questions as diverse as justice in tort law,6 clinical education's importance for the development of professional responsibility,7 society's responsibility to provide public assistance to the disabled,8 grading methods for law school exams,9 the desirability of adjudicating the constitutional claims of military personnel under a "separate community" standard,10 and aspects of the criminal justice system.11 The vast majority of these references look to Aristotle's writings in moral and political philosophy.12 (1990) [hereinafter West, Taking Freedom Seriously]; Robin L. West, Taking PreferencesS eriously, 64 TUL. L. REv. 659 (1990); Note, Taking Reichs Seriously: German Unification and the Law of State Succession, 104 HAev. L. REv. 588 (1990); William E. Forbath, Taking Lefts Seriously, 92 YALE L.J. 1041 (1983) (book review); Mark Kelman, Taking Takings Seriously: An Essayf or Centrists,7 4 CALIF. L. R v. 1829 (1986) (book review); Douglas Laycock, Taking Constitutions Seriously: A Theory of JudicialR eview, 59 Tax. L. REv. 343 (1981) (book review); William M. Treanor, Taking the Framers Seriously, 55 U. Cu. L. REv. 1016 (1988) (book review). 2. A LEXIS search conducted on December 1, 1993 in the LAWREV library and the ALLREV file using the search term "Aristot!" retrieved 1080 law review articles. 3. A LEXIS search conducted on December 1, 1993 in the GENFED library and the US file found nine Supreme Court opinions referring to Aristotle or Aristotelian views. See Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Cm. L. REv. 1175, 1182 (1989) (announcing that "I stand with Aristotle" in endorsing rule formalism). 4. A LEXIS search conducted on December 1, 1993 in the GENFED library and the USAPP and DIST files found 125 federal appellate and district court decisions referring to Aristotle or Aristotelian views. 5. A LEXIS search conducted on December 1, 1993 in the STATES library and the COURTS file found 133 state court decisions referring to Aristotle or Aristotelian views. 6. See Jules Coleman, Corrective Justice and Wrongful Gain, 11 J. LEoAL STUD. 421, 433-36 (1982); Robert Cooter, Torts As the Union of Liberty and Efficiency: An Essay on Causation, 63 CHI.- KENT L. REv. 523, 546-47 (1987). 7. See Phyllis Goldfarb, A Theory-Practice Spiral: The Ethics of Feminism and Clinical Education, 75 MINN. L. REv. 1599, 1662-67 (1991) [hereinafter Goldfarb, Theory-PracticeS piral]; David Luban, Epistemology and Moral Education, 33 J. LEoAL EDuc. 636, 637, 650-61 (1983). 8. See Peter B. Edelman, The Next Century of Our Constitution: Rethinking Our Duty to the Poor, 39 HAsrTas L. 1, 22-23 (1987). 9. See Philip C. Kissam, Law School Examinations, 42 VAND. L. Rev. 433, 445-51 (1989). 10. See James M. Hirsehhom, The Separate Community: Military Uniqueness and Servicemen's ConstitutionalR ights, 62 N.C. L. REv. 177, 250-51 & n.394 (1984). 11. Stephen J. Morse, Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered, 58 S. CAL. L. Rev. 777, 782 (1985); Benjamin B. Sendor, Crime As Communication:A n Interpretive Theory of the Insanity Defense and the Mental Elements of Crime, 74 GEO. L.J. 1371, 1372-73 (1986). 12. Of these, the most important are the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Politics, although Aristotle's Protrepticus and Constitution of Athens are occasionally mentioned as well. Throughout this article, Aristotle's works will be cited to the Oxford Classical Text editions using the Bekker pagination that is printed in the margins. On the relationship between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics, see THE PoLncs OF ARisTomt at xxxv, 353 (Ernest Barker trans., 1962) and infra note 266 and accompanying text. See generally I SIR ALmEANDeR GRANT, THE ETmICS oF ARiSTOTLE, ILLusmaTE wrrH EssAYs AND Noras app. C at 410-13 (Amo Press 1973) (1875) [hereinafter GRANT, TE ETmIcs oF AmSToa=] (arguing that Aristotle at times presents politics as the end of ethics and at times acknowledges the absolute worth of the individual by maintaining a complete separation between politics and ethics); A.W.H. Adkins, The Connection between Aristotle's Ethics and Politics, 12 POL. THEORY 29 (1984), reprintedi n A COMPANION TO AmsToma's Pou.rcs 75 (David 1994] TAKING ARISTOTLE SERIOUSLY Legal theorists who voice civic republican or communitarian concerns are among those who have frequent recourse to Aristotle's authority in their writings.13 Although these theorists actually comprise a very heterogene- ous group,'4 and several consider themselves to be mainstream or modified Keyt & Fred D. Miller, Jr. eds., 1991) (focusing on the question of the relationship between the good man and the good citizen in these two works). On the Eudemian Ethics, see generally AwusTOTrE's EUDEmm,v ETrCS. Boors I If AND VIII (Michael Woods trans., 1982). On the relationship between the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics, see generally JoHN M. COOPER, REASON AND HUMAN GOOD iN Aas'roia= 144-80 (1975) (comparing the account of happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics with that in the Eudemian Ethics); ANTHoNY KENNY, THE AisToT~ri E'rscs: A STUDY OF THE RELAT!ONSHIP BErwEEN THE EuDEMv AND NrcomA cHEAN E7Hcs OF AlusTo-LE (1978) [hereinafter KENNY, THE Ausrorm.TAN Ermcs] (based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, other stylistic features, and an analysis of philosophical issues, Kenny argues that the Eudemian Ethics was viewed in the ancient world as Aristotle's main ethical work and that the Books common to it and the Nicomachean Ethics were first written as part of the Eudemian Ethics and later added to the Nicomachean Ethics); ANTHONY KENNY, ARmsToTE ON Tm PERPEaT LIFE app. 1, at 113-42 (1992) (updating and revising his 1978 study); J. DONALD MONAN, MORAL KNOwLED E AND ITS MEMODOLOGY IN Ams-roa 37-59, 151-56 (1968) (reviewing current interpretations of the relationship between the two works and summarizing his own view); T.H. Irwin, Book Review, 77 J. PinM. 338 (1980) (reviewing ANTHONY KENNY, ARSTrOm.AN ETmIcs (1978) and ANTHONY KENNY, ARIsTOTLE's THEORY OF Tm Wiu. (1979)). 13. The expression "civic republicans" has a meaning similar to the earlier expression "civic humanists," which, in turn, has a meaning similar to "classical republicans." See J.G.A. Pocock, Virtues, Rights, and Manners: A Modelfor Historianso f Political Thought, 9 POL. THEORY 353, 354-55 (1981) [hereinafter Pocock, Virtues, Rights, and Manners] (asserting that both civic humanism and classical republicanism posit that "homo is naturally a citizen and most fully himself when living in a vivere civile"). However, most contemporary writers distinguish contemporary civic republicanism from the classical republicanism of Greek thinkers. One of the leitmotifs of this Article is the various points of disagreement between classical republicanism and its contemporary offspring. See, e.g., West, Taking Freedom Seriously, supra note 1, at 60-61 (stating that civic republicanism, like classical republicanism, values "communal political life and a collective, deliberative dialogue that articulates the shared values that should be at the center of that life," but rejects "the conformity, homogeneity, and militaristic zeal" of the earlier version). The label "communitarian" is of more recent vintage, and it is often used interchangeably with "civic republican" to describe theorists who endorse some or all of the views described in the text that follows. But see Dnicilla Cornell, Beyond Tragedy and Complacency, 81 Nw. U. L. REv. 693, 695 n.9, 697 n.11 (1987) (distinguishing civic republicans from "dialogic communitarians" in that the latter do not limit their ideals to the intent of the founders, and they value individual freedom, not just collective self-governance). For the view that we should discard the labels "communitarian" and "liberal," see Charles Taylor, Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate, in LmIERAtsM Am a MORAL LiFE 159, 163 (Nancy L. Rosenblum ed., 1989) [hereinafter Taylor, Cross-Purposes]( arguing that these labels mask the multiplicity of basic issues associated with each point of view). 14. The legal theorists most frequently cited as spearheading the republican revival are Cass Sunstein, Frank Michelman, Suzanna Sherry, and Michael Perry. See Lawrence B. Solum, Virtues and Voices, 66 Cin.-KENr L. REv. 111, 112 & n.9 (1990) (mentioning Linda Hirshman, Pnina Lahav, James Gray Pope, and Mark Tushnet in addition to the above list); Ronald Kahn, Pluralism, Civic Republicanism, and CriticalT heory, 63 TuL. L. Ray. 1475, 1475 (1989) (listing Levinson and Tushnet in addition to Perry). Solum describes his own work as "broadly liberal." Solum, Virtues and Voices, supra, at 113 n.13. While Richard Fallon discusses Mark Tushnet as a major civic republican figure, he adds that "Tushnet is in many ways half-hearted and ambivalent about his embrace of republicanism" and that Sunstein and Michelman are "less ambivalent republican revivalists." Richard H. Fallon, Jr., What Is Republicanism, and Is It Worth Reviving? 102 HARv. L. REv. 1695, 1699 (1989). But Fallon also notes that Sunstein, whose views Fallon finds attractive, characterizes his own goal as developing a kind of "liberal republicanism," committed to incorporating such good things as rights, equality, and neutrality into his model. Id. at 1730-32; see Cass R. Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 334 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 82:329 liberals, 5 all discuss one or more of such republican themes as the intellec- YALE L.J. 1539, 1541-42, 1566-71 (1988) (defining "liberal republicanism"). Fallon also observes that Michelman, who is frequently included among civic republican theorists, "draws his central historical inspiration not from Aristotle ... but from the liberal holy of holies, Immanuel Kant." Fallon, supra, at 1730; see Frank I. Michelman, The Supreme Court, 1985 Term-Foreword: Traces of Self-Government, 100 HARv. L. REV. 4, 26-30 (1986) [hereinafter Michelman, Traces of Self-Government] (referring to Kant). For other classifications of legal scholars, see Stephen A. Gardbaum, Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community, 90 MicH. L. Rnv. 685, 690 (1992) (adding the following "legal communitarians" to the above lists: Owen Fiss, Robert Cover, Roberto Unger, Duncan Kennedy, and Robert Bork); John J. Gibbons, Intentionalism,H istory, and Legitimacy, 140 U. PA. L. Rav. 613,643-44(1991) (associating Bruce Ackerman, Cass Sunstein, Frank Michelman, and Mark Tushnet with republicanism); Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 STrAN. L. Ra. 29, 30 n.7 (1985) [hereinafter Sunstein, Interest Groups] (noting significant authors (as of 1985) in the republican revival in history, political theory, and legal theory); West, Taking Freedom Seriously, supra note 1, at 62 n.109 (noting "republican" arguments of Paul Brest in Further Beyond the Republican Revival: Toward Radical Republicanism, 97 YALE LJ. 1623 (1988)). 15. For example, Suzanna Sherry describes her own approach as "feminine jurisprudence." Suzanna Sherry, Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in ConstitutionalA djudication, 72 VA. L. Rnv. 543, 544 (1986) [hereinafter Sherry, Civic Virtue]. Feminine jurisprudence "might embrace" "the communitarian and virtue-based framework of Jeffersonian republicanism." Id. Sherry also characterizes her project as reconciling the liberal and the republican traditions rather than replacing the liberal with the republican. Id. at 578. Sunstein appears to endorse the ideas he attributes to the founders, especially the Federalists, who abandoned civic virtue but retained a belief in a deliberative democracy. Sunstein, Interest Groups, supra note 14, at 46-47. Sunstein calls the Founders' rejection of selfish pluralism and their expectation that representatives would have civic virtue "'Madisonian republicanism' .. ., which occupies an intermediate position between interest-group pluralism and traditional republicanism." Id. at 47-48; see Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, supra note 14, at 1558-64 (detailing interplay of pluralist and republican thought in Founders' political theory). In Beyond the Republican Revival, Sunstein adopts and elaborates a "liberal republicanism," which is "not antiliberal at all." Id. at 1541; see id. at 1567 (arguing that liberal republicanism can be "the antonym of the species of republicanism that operated during the constitutional period" only through a "caricature" of the liberal tradition); Cass R. Sunstein, Administrative Substance, 1991 DUK L.J. 607, 612-16 (describing liberal republicanism). Contra Sherry, Civic Virtue, supra, at 561 (arguing that the Constitution is liberal, not republican). Frank Michelman identifies himself with the republican tradition. Frank Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 YALE L.J. 1493, 1499, 1514, 1525 (1988). Nonetheless he rejects certain views traditionally associated with that tradition, such as civic virtue and a unitary common good, in favor of a brand of republicanism emphasizing practical reason and dialogue. Michelman, Traces of Self- Government, supra note 14, at 36-47. Michelman's republicanism is also deeply inclusory and committed to pluralism, which he sees as a condition of meaningful dialogue. Michelman, Law's Republic, supra, at 1495, 1505-07. Like Sunstein, Bruce Ackerman states that one of his aims is "to question the dichotomy between liberalism and republicanism." 1 BRucE AcKIE AN, WE =rEPEEo PLE: FoUNAMONs 29 (1991) [hereinafter, AcERam A, WE m PEoPLE]. Ackerman's interpretation of American constitutional theory finds in it a strong individualist liberal component ("normal politics") coupled with a more communal and deliberative republican-oriented component ("constitutional moments"). Id. at 6-7, 19- 21, 29-33, 91; see Bruce A. Ackerman, The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution, 93 YALE L.J. 1013, 1022-23 (1984). Robin West classifies herself as a liberal. See Robin L. West, Liberalism Rediscovered: A PragmaticD efinition of the Liberal Vision, 46 U. Prrr. L. REv. 673, 674-77 (1985) [hereinafter West, Liberalism Rediscovered], where she develops a theory of "pragmatic liberalism," and West, Taking Freedom Seriously, supra note 1, at 46-47, where she rejects what she calls legal liberalism and appears to endorse the type of liberalism elaborated by Vaclav Havel. Although her views are in the last analysis deeply individualistic, several aspects of her theory reflect republican concerns. One example is her belief that we must pursue the good life and that the content of the good life is only knowable through a communal inquiry. See West, Liberalism Rediscovered, supra, at 673-74, 680-83. A second 1994] TAKING ARISTOTLE SERIOUSLY tual and moral poverty of the more individualistic theories of liberalism and their emphasis on rights; the importance of strengthening communal bonds among citizens; the concomitant need for participation in political activity animated by a commitment to the public interest or the common good; the distinction between people's spontaneous preferences or felt needs and their true and permanent interests; and the desirability of deliberative or reasoned public decisionmaking processes.16 Legal theorists address these issues in order to reform and invigorate American democratic processes, whether at the level of judicial review, leg- islation, or public awareness and participation in politics. Although their ultimate purpose is thus practical, 7 their mode of analysis is in general example is her emphasis on the moral responsibilities of leaders and citizens. See West, Taking Freedom Seriously, supra note 1, at 65-66, 72-74 (according to Havel, responsibility for oneself, not rights, establishes a person's identity and freedom, and responsibility for others ensures a free society). For a more recent and developed statement of liberalism embedded in pragmatic philosophy, see generally CHARLEs W. ANDERSON, PRAmA'ic LIBERALISM (1990). A vast literature has grown up discussing the relationship between liberalism and republicanism. See, e.g., RicHARD A. PosNER, Tm PRoBLEMs oF JURISPRUDENCE 414 (1990) (liberalism and communitarianism are mutually exclusive legal theories); C. Edwin Baker, Republican Liberalism: Liberal Rights and Republican Politics, 41 FLA. L. REv. 491, 494 (1989) (stating that our constitutional vision can be characterized as "republican liberalism" that, in part, requires common goods to be advanced only in a manner consistent with liberal rights); Ronald Beiner, What's the Matter with Liberalism?, in LAW AND THE Comiasutirry: THE END OF INDIVIDuALisM? 37, 45 (Allan C. Hutchinson & Leslie J.M. Green eds., 1989) (writing that "liberalism itself is unavoidably a communitarian theory" given certain assumptions); Gardbaum, Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community, supra note 14, at 686-90 (communitarian legal theory's attack on liberalism is marked by confusion over what the claims of community are); Mark Seidenfeld, A Civic Republican Justificationf or the BureaucraticS tate, 105 HARV. L. REv. 1511, 1528 (1992) ("Civic republicanism has evolved as a concurrence of liberal and republican theory that simultaneously seeks to foster individual freedom from government-imposed values and freedom collectively to define the values of the relevant political community."). 16. For further discussions of the core tenets of contemporary republicanism, see Fallon, What is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving, supra note 14, at 1697; Gardbaum, Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community, supra note 14, at 723-30; Steven G. Gey, The Unfortunate Revival of Civic Republicanism, 141 U. PA. L. REv. 801, 804-33 (1993) [hereinafter Gey, The Unfortunate Revival]; Sunstein, Administrative Substance, supra note 15, at 612-16. For an examination of the contemporary republicanism of political theorists, see Allen E. Buchanan, Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism, 99 Ermcs 852, 852-56 (1989) (concluding that liberalism's belief that government should protect basic individual civil and political rights survives the communitarian critique, although such rights can be justifiably overridden to protect the good of the community); Amy Gutmann, Communitarian Critics of Liberalism, 14 PmL. & PuB. AFF. 308 (1985) (reviewing communitarian attacks on liberalism's emphasis on individual rights); Taylor, Cross-Purposes,s upra note 13, at 172 (comparing liberalism's idea of society requiring a value-neutral government with the communitarian and republican idea of society requiring a conception of a common good). 17. Nonetheless these legal theorists are criticized for not being practical enough. See Rosa Eckstein, Comment, Towards a Communitarian Theory of Responsibility: Bearing the Burden for the Unintended, 45 U. MLhu L. Rnv. 843, 893 (1991) (arguing that communitarian authors do not offer a "viable, tangible alternative" to liberalism). For a comparable critique of communitarian political theorists, see THomAs A. SPRAOENS, JR., REASON AND DEMocRACY 7-8 (1990) (most major communitarian political works have been critiques of liberal individualism; "[wihen it comes to providing a constructive and affirmative philosophical foundation for the communitarian viewpoint, we find rather thin fare"). According to Linda Hirshman, the problem is not simply a failure to focus on concrete practical suggestions; rather, these communitarian theorists' practical failings stem from a profound theoretical blindness. Linda R. Hirshman, The Virtue of Liberality in American Communal CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 82:329 carefully reasoned and scholarly. Yet for the most part, contemporary legal theorists rely on Aristotle in a perfunctory manner. Even when Aristotle is cited, his views are quoted summarily or in a conclusory fashion, like axi- oms of geometry too obvious to warrant discussion.18 This tendency is odd for two reasons. First, Aristotle was a supremely dialectical writer. Although famous for being the first philosopher to offer a systematic account of syllogisms and demonstrative reasoning,19 the hall- mark of his style in his political and moral works is its investigative or exploratory character.20 Thus, to treat isolated propositions in Aristotle's Life, 88 MICH. L. REv. 983, 985-86 (1990) (arguing that civic republican legal theorists cannot "articulate a satisfying version of a common life without a theory of the good life," which they shun out of fear of its authoritarian and 6litist implications). 18. There are a few notable exceptions. See, e.g., Donald F. Brosnan, Virtue Ethics in a Perfectionist Theory of Law and Justice, 11 C~Anozo L. REv. 335 (1989) [hereinafter Brosnan, Virtue Ethics]; Linda R. Hirshman, The Book of "A," 70 TEx. L. REv. 971 (1992); Solum, Virtues and Voices, supra note 14, at 114-17, 119-22, 127-29. 19. Demonstrative reasoning is the subject of Aristotle's PriorA nalytics and PosteriorA nalytics. Briefly, it combines true, necessary, and primary premises within a rigorous syllogistic structure to reach true and necessary conclusions. See AlsToTaE, POSTmUOR ANALY-rcs 1.2; AISTOTLE, Topics 1.1 100a27-b21. So defined, demonstrative reasoning appears to be more scientific or rigorous than dialectical reasoning. As a consequence, some scholars have concluded either that Aristotle discovered the method of demonstration after he discovered the method of dialectic or, regardless of the order of discovery, that he saw the method of demonstration as superseding the method of dialectic in most areas of philosophic investigation. See, e.g., D.W. Hamlyn, Aristotle on Dialectic, 65 PHILOSOPHY 465, 473- 76 (1990) (maintaining that dialectic is not part of the search for truth in itself, although it may play a significant role in enabling people to understand or accept first principles); Pamela M. Huby, The Date of Aristotle's Topics and its Treatment of the Theory of Ideas, 12 CLAssIcAL Q. (n.s.) 72, 76 (1962) (stating that Aristotle's discovery of syllogisms and the rigorous arguments of demonstrative reasoning caused him to give a lower place to dialectic); Friedrich Solmsen, Dialectic Without the Forms, in ARISTOTLE ON DIALECTIC: THE Topvcs49, 53-55 (G.E.L. Owen ed., 1968) (arguing that Aristotle placed philosophical and mathematical syllogisms above dialectic, which he assumed proceeds only from opinion); Joseph Moreau, Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne, in ARIsTOTLE ON DIALECTIC: THE Topics, supra, at 80, 83-85 (stating that dialectic was the supreme "scientific" method in Platonic philosophy until Aristotelian demonstrative reasoning replaced it). For the contrary view, i.e., that Aristotle did consider dialectic as part of philosophic investigation, see J.D.G. EVANS, ARusToTLE'S CoNcEPr OF DiAL1cric 3-6, 75-94 (1977) (developing the thesis that dialectic is critical for establishing the foundations of the sciences because it enables the investigator to move from what is intelligible relative to individuals to what is intelligble without qualification); Roger Crisp, Aristotle on Dialectic, 66 PaIosoPHY 522, 523 (1991) (asserting that dialectic has two uses: winning debates and philosophic investigation); Miriam Galston, Aristotle's Dialectic,R efutation, and Inquiry, 21 DIALOaue 79, 91-93 (1982) (arguing that dialectic is part of philosophic investigation, and not just a prelude to it, and describing how dialectic is able to transcend generally accepted opinion); Terence H. Irwin, Aristotle's Methods of Ethics, in Srtnmis INA IsToTa 193, 194-201 (Dominic J. O'Meara ed., 1981) (describing the philosophic use of dialectic in the Nicomachean Ethics). The most important recent work on Aristotle's method of dialectic is TERENCE IRwiN, ARIsroTE's FIRST PRINCIPLES 14-25 (1988) (distinguishing between Aristotle's pure dialectic, which reasons from generally accepted beliefs to attain coherence among beliefs, and his strong dialectic, which selects its premises more rigorously; and arguing that Aristotle's philosophical treatment of the nature of being in the Metaphysics as well as certain of the discussions in his other writings proceed through strong dialectic). 20. See MARY P. NicHoLs, CrrrzENs AND STATESMEN: A STUDY OF ARISTOTLE's Pouncs 7-8 (1992) [hereinafter NicHOLs, CrrizEis AND STATESMEN) (maintaining that Aristotle employs the method of dialectic in the Politics to create a political debate in which he both teaches and learns; thus, he "rules and is ruled in turn"); STEPnEN G. SALKCEvER, FINDING THE MEAN: THEORY AND PRATIcE IN 1994] TAKING ARISTOTLE SERIOUSLY works as philosophic catechisms does violence to a core aspect of the phi- losopher's own method. Second, many of the authors who cite Aristotle emphasize his theory of practical reasoning as part of a larger argument stressing the importance of contextual, as contrasted with abstract, argu- ments for political discourse." It is ironic, therefore, that contemporary authors who value this dimension of Aristotle's thought nevertheless adopt particular statements made by Aristotle and repeat them as universal truths without considering the extent to which the plausibility of the statements depends upon the context in which they are made and upon related views presented in Aristotle's other works. In some instances, this irony is partic- ularly acute because Aristotle's statements taken in context are less support- ive of contemporary views than the same statements viewed in isolation. My purpose in this Article is to begin the task of recovering Aristotle in context.22 The substantive focus of the Article is an issue that has fre- quently engaged contemporary legal theorists with republican concerns: creating a more deliberative or reflective political life.23 In the process, I address related issues-such as the importance of communal ties for being AiusTOTELAN POLITICAL PHILosoPHY 4-5 (1990) [hereinafter SAImV ER, FINDING a MEAN] (stating that Aristotle's political writings should be seen as supplying a method of argument rather than a set of absolutely certain solutions); Martha C. Nussbaum, Comments, 66 Cm.-Km"N L. REv. 213, 213 (1990) (asserting that the classical philosophical tradition should be seen "not as a tradition of positions, but as a tradition of argument and counter-argument"). 21. See Katharine T. Bartlett, Feminist Legal Methods, 103 HARv. L. Rv.8 29, 850-58 (1990) (maintaining that feminist legal methods employ practical reasoning in which legal resolutions are responses to specific, real-life problems rather than abstract derivations that inevitably exclude the perspective of nondominant groups); Goldfarb, Theory-PracticeS piral, supra note 7, at 1636-37, 1666- 67 (stating that clinical education reflects the Aristotelian process of reasoning from the circumstances of a given context to form an ethical judgment); Hirshman, The Book of "A," supra note 18, at 978-79 (describing the Aristotelian concept of practical reason and asserting that its emphasis on particularity, flexibility, concreteness, and context mirror the basic elements of feminist practical reason). Legal theorists who are not fundamentally republican in their orientation have also shown interest in practical reasoning. See Gerald Dworkin, Philosophy, Law, and Politics, 72 IowA L. REv. 1355, 1356 (1987) ("[,V]e ought to recognize the Aristotelian view that how we ought to live cannot be determined by any formulable list of general principles."); Daniel A. Farber & Philip P. Frickey, Practical Reason and the First Amendment, 34 UCLA L. Rv. 1615, 1616-17, 1645-47 (1987) (describing the shift in focus from grand theory, foundational justifications, and narrowly objective, logical approaches to situational accounts of practical judgment); Anthony T. Kronman, Living in the Law, 54 U. Cm. L. REv. 835, 846-47 & n.21 (1987) (stating that Aristotle was one of the few philosophers to address the subject of judgment). 22. This Article can thus be seen as contributing to the larger project undertaken by some legal theorists to clarify contemporary republican legal theory by elaborating the nonlegal sources of its basic concepts and ideas. See, e.g., Gardbaum, Law, Politics,a nd the Claims of Community, supran ote 14, at 690-732 (providing a moral and political framework for understanding the claims of community in legal theory). 23. This Article assumes the desirability of a more deliberative political community. For criticism of the deliberative ideal, see infra note 91. For a discussion of the place of the deliberative ideal in American constitutional law, see Paul W. Kahn, Reason and Will in the Origins of American Constitutionalism, 98 YALE LJ.4 49, 454-61 (1989) [hereinafter Kahn, Reason and Will] (discussing the Founders' belief that political freedom presupposes a regime in which the governed reflect as well as choose their form of government). But see id. at 450, 494-502 (arguing that at the time of the founding, the reigning political theory emphasized the rational or scientific nature of the American Constitution in