The Powerful Ideas Behind the Oἰκία

Home management has a thing or two to teach us about ethics and economics

Ancient Greeks gave us a wonderful heritage. From democracy to philosophy and ethics, the antique legacy shapes much of today’s world. Nonetheless, many aspects of this heritage are often overlooked, or simply forgotten. That is the case with the concept of οἰκία, or the home in ancient Greek.

Oἰκία, the origins of economics

In ancient Athens, the legal term of οἰκία designated specifically the house owned by any citizen. But in many texts, it came to signify the household area, the domestic space and the concept of home itself: where one was sovereign over the administration of his affairs.

The administration (nomos) of one’s home (oiko) gave us the concept of Oikonomos, or household manager, head of the household. In ancient Greece, only men were allowed citizenship. In the household, we find the same patriarchal hierarchy. The head of the household was the father.

Economics is derived from this notion of Oikonomos. Hence, the Greek vision of the economic activity can be defined as a set of characteristics:

• It was a private matter: the economic activity was done in the private space. We will see how it unfolds into a dialectic between the private space and the public space (polis).
• There was no democracy involved: the head of the household was the only decision maker, and had a total domination.
• With this vertical hierarchy, the work itself was often devolved by the husband to domestics, slaves, or non-citizen men (metics).

The very first concept of economics to emerge is thus the activity of labor, the primary activity to sustain life within the household. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Human Condition, economics was the “sphere for managing the necessities of life”. If man is a political animal in the city, in his home one is an animal laborans, a working animal.

The economics and the polis

As we saw, economics was a private matter, managed by a dominant husband or father in his household. More specifically, Ancient Greeks saw the economic activity as the antithesis of politics.

Indeed, the political space, polis, was a space of equality in Ancient Athens. Democracy ensured all citizens were seen as equals. They could only differentiate themselves from one another by bold actions: as an orator or as a warrior. Coming out of one’s own zone of security and sufficiency (οἰκία) to participate in the life of the city was an act of courage. What was the motivation behind such an act? Why would men leave the comfort of their home, where they were all powerful?

We saw that the economic sphere comes to life for the necessities of life. But the polis is built by men “for the sake of life”, “for the good life” according to Aristotle in his Politics. Politics (the government of men over the city through dialogue) is thus not only opposed to economics (the administration of a man upon his household through violence), it was a superior system.

This superiority can be inferred through the vita activa. The life of political action, of vital action, described by Arendt, enables this very space of freedom and equality. The oἰκία, on the contrary, is the space of servitude (douleia) to the necessity of labor, of the fundamental inequality between the patriarchal oikonomos and others. Only the husband had the freedom to leave the home to go to the free space of democracy, and thus exist as a political animal.

The economics and the ethics

We saw that politics is the action of the collective, while economics consist of work of and for the self and the family. Therefore, how to conceptualise the economy as a collective dynamic then? Ancient Greece had market activities and engaged in trade between cities. But how did Greeks considered these activities if their understanding of the economics was limited to the οἰκία? From what we explained earlier, it sounds like an oxymoron to engage in a social economic activity.

This oxymoron can be further sustained with the vision of Arendt. For a man to become a homo faber, or man-who-creates, he needs to project himself in the world, surrounded by others. With tools man can create an artificial world and elevate himself from the condition of animal laborans. But he cannot do it alone. How to reconcile the collective and the economics then? Aristotle, in Oeconomics, gives us some keys to overcome this difficulty.

First, the philosopher lays his economic reflection with a strong critic of the greed behind market activities. Practices of retail merchants (kápêlo) are “unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another” Aristotle wrote. For him, that is the curse of economic activities as a collective phenomenon. Men, when engaged in a collective dynamic that is not governed by politics, will try to seek money for the sake of money (chrematistics). To engage in such economic activities, he calls for a transposition of oἰκία ethics. Familial ethics, patriarchal domination and more importantly, the absence of chrematistic in the conduct of activity are the main criterion. Wealth is not, or should not be, the purpose of economics according to him. The economic activities should be handled as a father administers his home.

This view of economics — rather stagnant by today’s standard- will explain partly the fall of the Greek cities. The search for economic profit was seen as greed. Greeks, not seeing the benefit of economic growth, called for such moderation that one can witness in the conduct of the home. Moreover, the workers (non-citizens) were not the ones benefiting from the production (the citizens). Max Weber describes a pensionpolis of idle consumers (“Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum”). Indeed, antique Greece was largely powered by slavery. Hence, there were no incentives for workers to produce more, or better.

This oἰκία ethics has largely influenced the history of economic activities. Aristotle principles did not end with the end of the Greek era. For instance, medieval guilds in Europe were similar to families, with their hierarchical structure and abhorrence for innovations. The very word “company” is derived from the Latin “cum-panis”, or those who eat the same bread, or come from the same economic unit i.e. the household.

Conclusion: Are modern day economics the legacy of the Oἰκία administration?

Nonetheless, Scott Meikle, in Aristotle’s Economic Thought, explains that the notion of Oikonomos and the modern concept of economics are not similar. Indeed, ethics and economics remains irreconcilable in a unique approach. Both have opposite values, and give different purposes to a collective decision. By Aristotle’s own admission, economics and ethics were competing with each others as far as public decision goes. Chrematistics had a strong influence in the medieval era, but the overall oἰκία ethics did not sway the actual economic approach. Hence, the modern days economics lays itself on another set of principles (mainly the Humean metaphysics).

Nevertheless, it does not mean that the oἰκία ethics has been erased in modern day economics. Arendt makes a point on the classical school of economics. This school’s foundations rely on the maximization of wealth for the population. This purpose of wealth maximization lays on the myth of primitive communism. It means that the very idea of maximizing wealth (or utility) for a given population is anchored in the idea of a household’s management. Decision makers are household managers trying to maximize the well-being of their oἰκία — be it an entire nation. Said otherwise, the purpose of classical economists is to maximize social utility. And the only justification to this purpose is that the population for whom the utility is maximized belong to the same oἰκία as the decision makers (be it an entire nation). Like for a family, the household manager is motivated by primitive communism and prioritizes his household members’ well-being.

These are the powerful ideas behind this notion of oἰκία. Belonging to a home is critical. It defines man as an animal laborans. Its opposition with the polis enables the vita activa. When public decision is needed, as in economic policy, it enables the very natural reflex of looking for the best social outcome. And when transposed as a collective economic phenomenon, it empowers man as a homo faber. Animal laborans, vita activa, and homo faber: those are also the three characteristics of what Arendt calls the… human condition.