Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes
Feel free to download this sample term paper to view our writing style, or use it as a template for your own paper. If you need help writing your assignment, click here!
| Assignment Type | Term Paper |
|---|---|
| Subject | Political Science |
| Academic Level | Undergraduate |
| Citation Style | MLA |
| Length | 7 pages |
| Word Count | 2,127 |
Need Some Help Writing your Paper?
We offer custom written papers starting at $32 / page. Your will get a completely custom-written paper tailored to your instructions, with zero chance of plagiarism.
Document Preview:
The Concept of Fear in the Political Theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes
The concept of fear has long been utilized in the development of political tactics. In using fear, dominant political actors exert not paternalistic power, but patriarchal power. This type of colonial or structural power is maximized through commodification, which is the act of devaluing or capitalizing the general population, or through objectification, which is the act of treating people or communities as if they were reduced to instruments of possession, pleasure or other attributes. By creating the means by which people are politically governed by the development of an emotional source of control, political leaders can ensure that they continue to have the power to make decisions without interference. In essence, in order to remain in the good graces of those with power, those without power must consent to becoming commodified or objectified with the purpose of serving the needs of patriarchal structural norms. This consent is obtained through fear tactics. Two leaders in the development of political thought, Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, provide insight into how and why fear tactics are utilized on a political level. This paper serves to explore the ways in which fear plays a role in the philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes. The paper takes the standpoint that the arguments of Machiavelli and Hobbes were not only appropriate to historical political thought, but are being utilized in politics today, whether or not they can be considered to be appropriate and ethical.
A Machiavellian method of political leadership is an approach which considers it necessary to be ruthless in one’s organizational tactics, over-riding the concern of any stakeholders. Machiavelli considered that to deceive his competitors and any other individuals who get in the way is a necessary evil: fear, and coercion can provide incentive. Machiavelli was focused on the promotion and protection of the self above all other concerns; because he believed on a fundamental level that people are inherently focused on their own interests, Machiavelli felt that leaders needed to be realistic about what they needed to do to accomplish their goals.
Machiavelli describes the situation thusly:
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. …men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. (Machiavelli XVII)
Machiavelli considered the bulk of humankind to be “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous,” (Machiavelli XVII), and because of that assumption, he made an argument that in order for any political decision to be made or for a leader to assume sovereignty, it was necessary to appeal to the population’s basest instincts. In this way, a Machiavellian political style can allow leaders to see past any immediate challenges and conceive that acting contrary to an ethical standard is acceptable because it is only a short-run manipulation in order to attain long-run gain. A person utilizing this style uses his or her leadership status to deride objections to his or her viewpoint on political affairs, but also to ensure that worst-case scenarios are evident within the minds of the public.
Machiavelli’s point of view was produced from his experience living in a time of political tumult. In sixteenth-century Italy, political and military alliances continually changed, and there was no sense of stability. Wars were waged not only by and between the leaders of Italy’s small city-states, but also by the Pope. Conflicts with neighboring regions were also common. There was, during this time period, a need to consolidate one’s interests in order to survive, but at the same time, switching sides was also very common. What this revealed to Machiavelli was, quite simply, that the only person upon which one could rely was oneself. This meant that manipulation of the public in order to gain a sense of security both for oneself and for the general population was justifiable. Machiavelli believed that political leaders needed to create an opportunity for consensus in whatever manner was effective, and fear was, in his estimation, the only way in which that objective could be achieved.
The idea of sovereignty, in the philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ estimation, on the other hand refers to the idea of modern political authority, in that it is a supreme authority within the physical boundaries of a territory. For Hobbes, writing about a century after Machiavelli, sovereignty is and should be absolute, and the state is the construct within which the power of those in command are bounded. As he wrote, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Hobbes 393). Like Machiavelli , the likely reason that Hobbes was substantially interested in the idea of political and social order was that he had personally experienced the extreme challenges associated with the disorder of the English Civil War. A time of great disconnect between the powers and actions of the King of England, the nascent Parliamentary government and different factions of people borne by divergent philosophical belief systems, the English Civil War created citizens who condoned public dissent on the largest scale the country had ever seen. The resulting social challenges were not only linked to political issues, but also to economic, educational, and religious ones as well. By presenting a philosophical option which demonstrated that dissent would lead to chaos and personal difficulty, Hobbes likely hoped to ensure that such an event would not happen again in England. Hobbes was looking for a means for a civil society to ensure its continuous existence using rational principles.
The concept presented by Hobbes was that citizens were able to institute sovereign authority through a social contract in which they conveyed all of their rights to what Hobbes called the Leviathan, which is a symbol of the abstract notion of the political state. While the Leviathan retained all power, it only did so with the consent of and will of the citizenry as a whole. At the same time, the Leviathan was above the law in that it was not bound by any citizen-devised constitution. The Leviathan’s will was absolute.
This meant that subjects of the state, according to Hobbes, needed to desist from any actions or philosophies that would act to destabilize sovereign authority. Hobbes believed that any government that was not absolute would necessarily be drawn into a civil war. In this way, stability and the peace of the nation would rely on the creation of an absolute sovereign authority. A government that is in possession of what Hobbes calls the “essential rights of sovereignty” is unfailingly effective, because of the fact that there will be no disputes. The rights and duties of the sovereign authority are therefore to act in the best interest of the people, to strive for peace and good governance, and to build strengths of the citizenry. In an overarching way, Hobbes attempted to show how a reciprocal correlation between political submission and peace could serve the populace in the most effective way.
In essence, the relationship between the sovereign authority and its citizens is a covenant, according to Hobbes. Citizens should not call into question the sovereign authority, nor should they rebel. Nonetheless, Hobbes argues that citizens still must hold on to an inherent right with respect to self-defense against the sovereign power. This is an interesting inconsistency. Hobbes denotes that citizens have the right to disobey or resist when their lives or their families’ lives are in danger, or when personal honor might be at stake. If one applies these tenets to the context of the English Civil War, there is a possibility that even with a sovereign authority war might not have been avoided, because of the fact that it was so strongly tied to religious motives. It is possible to argue from a philosophical perspective that Hobbes’ assertion is faulty, because of the fact that so many individuals during this time period equated their physical lives with the spiritual; if one’s soul was in jeopardy, then one would have the ability to overthrow the sovereign authority. If individuals each have the power to decide when and where they are being threatened, if at all, then there is a good chance that the system will fail. This makes Hobbes’ overarching theory, while coherent and thought-provoking, less than convincing in the long term.
Hobbes is somewhat justified defending this concept, nonetheless. When a group of individuals consent to working within the structure of a government, even one that has sovereign authority, it is possible to ensure that the needs of the many are served. There is a fundamental strength in creating the means by which a government can successfully protect those who have consented to obey it. This means that the power within sovereign authority actually resides within its citizenry. At the same time, the argument is weak because of the fact that, over time, people living under the auspices of a sovereign authority are likely to lose their power in the equation. The only way in which they are likely to address this inequality will be through the application of a civil war, because they have no ability to change matters by themselves. The very construct which seeks to build peace may be the one that will eventually destroy it.
In comparing the points of view of Machiavelli and Hobbes, a central tenet becomes clear. In the wake of destruction and war, fear becomes a means by which leaders can take control of an uncontrollable situation. If the state is able to create a process to ensure that there is safety through the mollification of individuals in fear of their own lives or livelihood, then there may be a chance to make changes that will result in a positive outcome for humanity over the long run. The problem, however, is that by inducing fear, other problems can and will occur. What may have been justifiable at the time at which Machiavelli and Hobbes were writing may not be so at the present day.
There are two key issues at stake here if we apply the concept of fear to the current political standard in Western nations. The first is that in order to produce fear, the state may need to exert violence against people without power, most notably the poor. This is not just physical violence, such as that practiced by police and military forces, but also violence in a more philosophical sense, meaning the dictation of people's thinking. This violence can be exerted not only against the state's own poor (witness the so-called vagrancy laws that deny homeless people the right to remain in public space) but also against those without power on a global basis (the Vietnam War can also be considered an example of a rich state attempting to deny poor Southeast Asians the right to a self-determination that would have gone against Western economic interests). The second issue is that the poor or powerless may choose, in response, to assert themselves though violence. There is a need amongst all human beings to demonstrate control over one’s own life, and the challenge, therefore, is that when either survival, safety, or freedom is at risk, there is a need for an equal and opposite reaction to bring things into balance.
It could be argued that, even today, the utilization of fear in political engagement is rampant. Whether or not it is ethical to manipulate the public into following a certain way of thinking of being is irrelevant, since it is clear that every electoral process galvanizes followers of political parties through fear tactics. Perhaps, in this way, Machiavelli was correct: people are likely to pursue their own interests whether or not they are in the best interests of society. Hobbes’ idea of the Leviathan is, in this way, realized in what we have created today, namely, a state bureaucracy that is not likely to be changed. In this way, the idea of the link been fear and politics has been inextricably set in stone.
References
Hobbes, T. Leviathan. London: Penguin, 1977.
Machiavelli, N. The Prince. (1513). Retrieved 10 October 2010 from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
The concept of fear has long been utilized in the development of political tactics. In using fear, dominant political actors exert not paternalistic power, but patriarchal power. This type of colonial or structural power is maximized through commodification, which is the act of devaluing or capitalizing the general population, or through objectification, which is the act of treating people or communities as if they were reduced to instruments of possession, pleasure or other attributes. By creating the means by which people are politically governed by the development of an emotional source of control, political leaders can ensure that they continue to have the power to make decisions without interference. In essence, in order to remain in the good graces of those with power, those without power must consent to becoming commodified or objectified with the purpose of serving the needs of patriarchal structural norms. This consent is obtained through fear tactics. Two leaders in the development of political thought, Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, provide insight into how and why fear tactics are utilized on a political level. This paper serves to explore the ways in which fear plays a role in the philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes. The paper takes the standpoint that the arguments of Machiavelli and Hobbes were not only appropriate to historical political thought, but are being utilized in politics today, whether or not they can be considered to be appropriate and ethical.
A Machiavellian method of political leadership is an approach which considers it necessary to be ruthless in one’s organizational tactics, over-riding the concern of any stakeholders. Machiavelli considered that to deceive his competitors and any other individuals who get in the way is a necessary evil: fear, and coercion can provide incentive. Machiavelli was focused on the promotion and protection of the self above all other concerns; because he believed on a fundamental level that people are inherently focused on their own interests, Machiavelli felt that leaders needed to be realistic about what they needed to do to accomplish their goals.
Machiavelli describes the situation thusly:
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. …men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. (Machiavelli XVII)
Machiavelli considered the bulk of humankind to be “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous,” (Machiavelli XVII), and because of that assumption, he made an argument that in order for any political decision to be made or for a leader to assume sovereignty, it was necessary to appeal to the population’s basest instincts. In this way, a Machiavellian political style can allow leaders to see past any immediate challenges and conceive that acting contrary to an ethical standard is acceptable because it is only a short-run manipulation in order to attain long-run gain. A person utilizing this style uses his or her leadership status to deride objections to his or her viewpoint on political affairs, but also to ensure that worst-case scenarios are evident within the minds of the public.
Machiavelli’s point of view was produced from his experience living in a time of political tumult. In sixteenth-century Italy, political and military alliances continually changed, and there was no sense of stability. Wars were waged not only by and between the leaders of Italy’s small city-states, but also by the Pope. Conflicts with neighboring regions were also common. There was, during this time period, a need to consolidate one’s interests in order to survive, but at the same time, switching sides was also very common. What this revealed to Machiavelli was, quite simply, that the only person upon which one could rely was oneself. This meant that manipulation of the public in order to gain a sense of security both for oneself and for the general population was justifiable. Machiavelli believed that political leaders needed to create an opportunity for consensus in whatever manner was effective, and fear was, in his estimation, the only way in which that objective could be achieved.
The idea of sovereignty, in the philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ estimation, on the other hand refers to the idea of modern political authority, in that it is a supreme authority within the physical boundaries of a territory. For Hobbes, writing about a century after Machiavelli, sovereignty is and should be absolute, and the state is the construct within which the power of those in command are bounded. As he wrote, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Hobbes 393). Like Machiavelli , the likely reason that Hobbes was substantially interested in the idea of political and social order was that he had personally experienced the extreme challenges associated with the disorder of the English Civil War. A time of great disconnect between the powers and actions of the King of England, the nascent Parliamentary government and different factions of people borne by divergent philosophical belief systems, the English Civil War created citizens who condoned public dissent on the largest scale the country had ever seen. The resulting social challenges were not only linked to political issues, but also to economic, educational, and religious ones as well. By presenting a philosophical option which demonstrated that dissent would lead to chaos and personal difficulty, Hobbes likely hoped to ensure that such an event would not happen again in England. Hobbes was looking for a means for a civil society to ensure its continuous existence using rational principles.
The concept presented by Hobbes was that citizens were able to institute sovereign authority through a social contract in which they conveyed all of their rights to what Hobbes called the Leviathan, which is a symbol of the abstract notion of the political state. While the Leviathan retained all power, it only did so with the consent of and will of the citizenry as a whole. At the same time, the Leviathan was above the law in that it was not bound by any citizen-devised constitution. The Leviathan’s will was absolute.
This meant that subjects of the state, according to Hobbes, needed to desist from any actions or philosophies that would act to destabilize sovereign authority. Hobbes believed that any government that was not absolute would necessarily be drawn into a civil war. In this way, stability and the peace of the nation would rely on the creation of an absolute sovereign authority. A government that is in possession of what Hobbes calls the “essential rights of sovereignty” is unfailingly effective, because of the fact that there will be no disputes. The rights and duties of the sovereign authority are therefore to act in the best interest of the people, to strive for peace and good governance, and to build strengths of the citizenry. In an overarching way, Hobbes attempted to show how a reciprocal correlation between political submission and peace could serve the populace in the most effective way.
In essence, the relationship between the sovereign authority and its citizens is a covenant, according to Hobbes. Citizens should not call into question the sovereign authority, nor should they rebel. Nonetheless, Hobbes argues that citizens still must hold on to an inherent right with respect to self-defense against the sovereign power. This is an interesting inconsistency. Hobbes denotes that citizens have the right to disobey or resist when their lives or their families’ lives are in danger, or when personal honor might be at stake. If one applies these tenets to the context of the English Civil War, there is a possibility that even with a sovereign authority war might not have been avoided, because of the fact that it was so strongly tied to religious motives. It is possible to argue from a philosophical perspective that Hobbes’ assertion is faulty, because of the fact that so many individuals during this time period equated their physical lives with the spiritual; if one’s soul was in jeopardy, then one would have the ability to overthrow the sovereign authority. If individuals each have the power to decide when and where they are being threatened, if at all, then there is a good chance that the system will fail. This makes Hobbes’ overarching theory, while coherent and thought-provoking, less than convincing in the long term.
Hobbes is somewhat justified defending this concept, nonetheless. When a group of individuals consent to working within the structure of a government, even one that has sovereign authority, it is possible to ensure that the needs of the many are served. There is a fundamental strength in creating the means by which a government can successfully protect those who have consented to obey it. This means that the power within sovereign authority actually resides within its citizenry. At the same time, the argument is weak because of the fact that, over time, people living under the auspices of a sovereign authority are likely to lose their power in the equation. The only way in which they are likely to address this inequality will be through the application of a civil war, because they have no ability to change matters by themselves. The very construct which seeks to build peace may be the one that will eventually destroy it.
In comparing the points of view of Machiavelli and Hobbes, a central tenet becomes clear. In the wake of destruction and war, fear becomes a means by which leaders can take control of an uncontrollable situation. If the state is able to create a process to ensure that there is safety through the mollification of individuals in fear of their own lives or livelihood, then there may be a chance to make changes that will result in a positive outcome for humanity over the long run. The problem, however, is that by inducing fear, other problems can and will occur. What may have been justifiable at the time at which Machiavelli and Hobbes were writing may not be so at the present day.
There are two key issues at stake here if we apply the concept of fear to the current political standard in Western nations. The first is that in order to produce fear, the state may need to exert violence against people without power, most notably the poor. This is not just physical violence, such as that practiced by police and military forces, but also violence in a more philosophical sense, meaning the dictation of people's thinking. This violence can be exerted not only against the state's own poor (witness the so-called vagrancy laws that deny homeless people the right to remain in public space) but also against those without power on a global basis (the Vietnam War can also be considered an example of a rich state attempting to deny poor Southeast Asians the right to a self-determination that would have gone against Western economic interests). The second issue is that the poor or powerless may choose, in response, to assert themselves though violence. There is a need amongst all human beings to demonstrate control over one’s own life, and the challenge, therefore, is that when either survival, safety, or freedom is at risk, there is a need for an equal and opposite reaction to bring things into balance.
It could be argued that, even today, the utilization of fear in political engagement is rampant. Whether or not it is ethical to manipulate the public into following a certain way of thinking of being is irrelevant, since it is clear that every electoral process galvanizes followers of political parties through fear tactics. Perhaps, in this way, Machiavelli was correct: people are likely to pursue their own interests whether or not they are in the best interests of society. Hobbes’ idea of the Leviathan is, in this way, realized in what we have created today, namely, a state bureaucracy that is not likely to be changed. In this way, the idea of the link been fear and politics has been inextricably set in stone.
References
Hobbes, T. Leviathan. London: Penguin, 1977.
Machiavelli, N. The Prince. (1513). Retrieved 10 October 2010 from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html