What does this Machiavelli guy know about being a prince anyway? Was he part of a royal family? It turns out that he worked with the higher ups in society, most notably serving as the Second Chancery's secretary from 1498 to 1512 when the Medici were out of power. How many opposites does a guy need to give to get his point across? He wrote that a prince especially was held under scrutiny on points that are good or bad. For example, a person/prince can be either lewd or chaste. Then he shoves 10 more comparisons down the reader's throat, as if he needed to define a whole language to his audience. People are more likely to take your argument seriously if you do not drag it out too long.
Overall,it shows a great deal of merit that we are discussing Nicolo's novel 500 years after it was published. It takes a wise man to realize that a prince that is harsh can be the best thing for a country as opposed to a merciful prince. This bodes true with all types of instructors. In 5th grade my parents signed me up for a guitar teacher. I took lessons with my brother simultaneously. Brian (my brother) was picking up the electric guitar from Steve (the instructor) while I attempted to learn the bass from this dude who didn't even specialize in bass. Our lessons lasted for only thirty minutes and he showed up late sometimes because he walked from his house. Anyway, the idiot never stressed the right things. Rather than encouraging me to learn to read music and set me up with good sheet music, he would just play cool sounding songs for the whole time we were together. Steve is like the merciful prince who is way to lax in his teaching to be effective.
Is it really safer to be feared than loved? I guess so. If I was a mob boss and had the ability to call hits like some mob boss out of Goodfellas, then nobody would mess with me. However, it seems like to be living as a man that everyone fears would be a solitary and lonely road. This sort of existence does not make my insides crave power. I have no intention to be the kind of dude that everyone hates. I find it easier and more fulfilling to be accepted by friends and family, who needs a kingdom. Nowadays your career could be destroyed from a tweet or a facebook post, so being a feared prince in this day and age seems idiotic
Joseph, you make some good points but there are also a many flaws in your post.
ReplyDeleteFirst, keep in mind our reading of Machiavelli was a collection of excerpts. This means that the person who organized the reading obviously chose the specific examples that aligned with the argument at hand. The excerpts we read spanned ninety pages, so I’m sure when reading The Prince it wouldn’t seem like Machiavelli is beating the proverbial ‘dead horse’. On a side note, I’m more inclined to agree with an argument with too many examples rather than the contrary.
Second, you make the claim that “It takes a wise man to realize that a prince that is harsh can be the best thing for a country as opposed to a merciful prince.” This is a valid claim that certainly has its merits, but your personal anecdote doesn’t seem to have much relevance to it. You say that your instructor was the merciful prince, but what was merciful about his attitude? He seemed to be more of a ‘selfish prince’ than anything. You also failed to describe Steve’s teaching style and if Brian ended up learning more than you.
With your third paragraph, your examples seem to be contrived. I don’t see how a mob boss could ever not be cruel. Also, mob bosses seem to have their family and goons with them that always provide them company; they don’t seem too lonely. Lastly, you claim that “your career could be destroyed from a tweet or a facebook post”. Making a stupid comment in social media does not make you hated, just seen as a fool.
This blog post definitely takes an interesting approach to Machiavellian theory. With regard to the first paragraph, and the length of Machiavelli's argument, I agree with Ryan that he was simply trying to enhance his point of view. Furthermore, it is important to remember than many of the major pieces of political theory written from a time period so long ago are very long, and that the style of argument also differed from modern theory.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the second paragraph, I think your problem with the guitar teacher may have stemmed from the fact that he was teaching something he was not very knowledgeable about, not that he lacked Machiavellian harshness. Machiavelli's focus is more on the leader of a principality, who needs to be harsh to maintain respect of his citizens, which differs from the situation that your teacher was in. The final points that you make are all true, as I agree that certain aspects of Machiavelli's writing do not translate to modern society. With that said, I believe Machiavelli is focused more on those who are leaders of others, meaning his policies do not apply to people have no desire for power.
I really enjoy the concept that you being to explore at the end of your blog post: information.
ReplyDeleteIn the time period this was written in, the level of technology did not allow for expedient communication of information. Thus, in this period it was possible for a Prince to be feared. Immoral actions or actions that directly worked to maintain their rule were possible as the perception of a Prince's rule by his people would have been ill formed upon rumor or word of mouth.
In a society with technology that allows for near instantaneous communication forces modern political rhetoric to be formulated and contrived in order to pander to the masses. Evident in the recent past (Presidential election), the rhetoric of politicians is not focused towards the perception of fear--though by no means do I assert that fear is not a viable and necessary component to political rhetoric--but rather to conforming or restating commonly shared beliefs.
Moving past the issues of obtaining positions of power, modern politics is dependent and overly concerned with being loved by the people. The emphasis on approval ratings, etc. are by large, a result of the increasing capacity to both survey the people who place these individuals into positions of power as well as the increasing capacity to advertise oneself in a positive manner.
In summation, the ability to be feared or to be loved as a Prince is highly dependent upon the ability to propagate information and to communicate with others. In the United States where the interconnectedness of individuals and their ability to communicate increases exponentially, to be feared seems to be a foolhardy approach that will quickly earn the collective scorn and anger of the people. In other societies where the level of technology is significantly limited or the freedom of expression is severely limited, to be feared seems to be the only possible course of action that will allow one to hold a position of power rather than be usurped or ousted by those who are willing to be feared.