Comparing Fear in Machiavelli and Hobbes

Comparing Fear in Machiavelli and Hobbes
Fear is a natural emotion felt by all living beings; from the smallest insect which rapidly moves away from larger movement by instinctive fear to the largest and strongest amongst human beings. Fear is recognized as an effective method for retrieving information or for manipulating one to do something they often would not. In politics, fear of political ramifications is also an effective tool used to sway voters and listeners in any direction a knowledgeable and well versed politician deems suitable for the interests of the party he or she represents. The use of fear in history by the Nobility, Royal families and in modern day politics has been and is a sophisticated and highly developed practice. Individuals succumb to fear each and every day and sometimes, unknowingly. For the purposes of this paper, reflection of Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes Leviathan will give insight on the use of fear for political gain and how appropriate these philosophies were for the time written, as well as for the present.
Nicolo Machiavelli
Machiavelli was born in 1469 in Florence Italy. He lived in a time in history where Italy was fractured into city states and was ruled by strong families of nobility. Born into nobility himself, Machiavelli’s family was not wealthy, but noble in name only. Because of this, Nicolo was able to see both aspects of society, where there was hardly any middle class. Later, Machiavelli became a Chancellor, where he was secretary in of the Florence Republic. Because diplomacy was played a key role in his job duties, many letters he had written were for the purpose of diplomatic missions and international affairs. It was in 1510 when Machiavelli organized a group of militia composed of Florentine citizens to be called to duty in case of state emergency. Two years later while a man named Soderini ruled, the Spanish attacked Prato after entering the town of Tuscany. Because of this, the Medici family was given back their position of power. Machiavelli had thought of Soderini as a weak leader, and one who was not feared enough which if he was, may have deterred the Spanish attack. Nicolo was dismissed from his station as Chancellor and exiled to the countryside with his family, but not before he was arrested and tortured while imprisoned as a suspected traitor to the Medici Family. Because of the unjust treatment he received as an innocent man, Machiavelli turned to his beloved history and began writing. The result of this escape was his work Il Princepe; The Prince. The book was intended for the members of the Medici Family to help them understand their ability to unify Northern Italy; which meant only a strong leader could rid the province of the French and Spanish.
Fear in Machiavelli’s The Prince is used to show how subjects or citizens will respond to the use of it by those in power. Interestingly, Machiavelli incorporates love into fear and regards the use of both in equal amounts ideal, but nearly impossible in one person. He goes on to address the fact that one in power may be merciful but cruel; to instill fear and maintain loyalty from armies and citizens alike. Those who have the appropriate fear of their leader will remain loyal and supportive while giving their blood for him in battle. This is profound, as if the leader is too merciful but loved then those armies and citizens will take advantage of the ruler’s leniency and demand more. This perception and philosophy is pronounced in chapter 17 of the Prince, and is the premise for the plea to the ruling power, the Medici Family, in the last pages.
Nicolo’s intentions was to inform the Medici’s that to be aggressive and strong meant that their people would follow and support them; by way of a certain fear which initiates respect. This type of fear is not the needlessly violent sort, nor does it imply cruelty imposed on innocents for selfish gains. These assumptions are what base the term “Machiavellian” and are improperly assessed. It is somewhat basic that fear gains respect, and respect encourages love. This is what Nicolo was trying to say in his book, which was later the basis for the Italian Unification many years later. Asking the question “is it better to be loved than feared” is one which Nicolo addresses in his book and expounds on the use of both attributes. Love and fear are coupled, according to Nicolo, and without one the other does not exist for those in leadership. It is through these attributes (mostly fear) that one in power can actually decide the course of their fate. Logic and fear play integrative roles when one is in power; as both can serve the public, personal interests and political successes in the long run. To rid the province of contemptible rule and tyranny, Machiavelli suggests the actual use of fear temporarily to set in motion the reorganization of rule or government. Once fear is established, there is little chance there will be regression because of the fear of punishment. Is this not prevalent in all societies and even families today? Fear is used to instruct, guide, and justify the actions of all of society, even those in power because of the threat of repercussions and/ or consequence. This was appropriate for Machiavelli’s time as well, as he proves he is writing these philosophies in a very objective view. For example, he was arrested and tortured under the suspicion he was a traitor and a threat to the Medici Family when they were given back their seat of power. Nicolo was made an example of for the observation of any potential traitor or threat. Nicolo understood this and certainly agreed with it, but only if one is proven guilty; which he never was.
Using Hannibal as an example, Machiavelli writes of his inhuman cruelty as well as his army which was composed of many diverse cultures of men. Here, there is acknowledgement that through fear, his men even with these cultural differences were unified and never spoke out against their leader nor was there any type of dissention amongst them. Fearing their leader more than the enemy, Hannibal’s other attributes would not have gained the mens’ respect without the fear he instilled in them. Although these “Machiavellian” traits and standards would not seem correct today in politics; throughout history, without leaders with these attributes many of the major conquests and changes in world history and governments would not have occurred, for better or for worse. Such was the mindset of Machiavelli; fear was the driving force behind a unified country but with mercy. Machiavelli also warns those in power to abstain from the taking of the property belonging to citizens and subjects; including their women. This would yield negative results in the form of hatred and revolt against those in power and would replace any sense of fear. This warning would also instill fear into the powerful, as any threat of revolt or hatred from the people would never serve any personal interests or gains. According to Nicolo, fear brings love, and love exists through obligation to those in power from the citizens and is the necessary component for a successful political government.
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 in Westport England and was premature as his mother learned of the Spanish Armada’s invasion. Educated by his uncle, Thomas learned languages such as Latin and Greek, and delved into ancient literature. At twenty, he became a tutor for the famous Cavendish Family (British Nobles) and was funded by these individuals for European travel where he met influential politicians and learned Italian and German. He decided not long after this to become a scholar, and dedicated himself to related quests and activities. Later in his life, Hobbes challenged the limits of those in political power. Hobbes thought that man is an addict of power, because that power ensures him comfort for life. The striving for self preservation and self interests are of great importance to Hobbes, and he believed that without power and authority chaos and crime ensues.
For Hobbes, self preservation is the basis for political philosophy and self interests therein. Along with this, the instinct of self preservation is what guides an individual’s actions, not basic morals and values. It is the natural instinct of self preservation which controls violent behavior and absurdities such as drunkenness, gluttony, and the like; according to the philosopher. This was a profound theory in a time when morals and values held society to a high standard and drove the actions of citizens. Those who committed crimes were thought to have no morals (deemed immoral) and held no particular values. In politics, self preservation prevailed, as well as the accumulation of knowledge and that which is held by those in power.
Hobbes believed that fear originates from ignorance which causes some to act irrationally. For the more patient or prudent individuals, wisdom is evident due to their course in time, with age or with experience. Every man is an enemy to every man, and one has power over another and his property if he can overcome the other through fear. This is so with all aspects of human life, that with this equality of persons there is also reason for envy and strife amongst them for the attributes each possess. If this is not complicated enough, Hobbes believed that men of war hold to the same; because the outcome of war is uncertain whether in terms of death or life, or victory or defeat, each man who engages in battle is driven on by constant fear. So for Hobbes, fear is a driving force for all individuals no matter their status. In political views, fear has the profound effect of anticipating eventual failure; which becomes the driving force for those aspiring for position.
Hobbes makes a comparison to a man who locks his doors, chests, and rides armed when he knows that there are laws in place which will grant him justice if any offense should come to himself or any of his goods and possessions. Hobbes also observes that this man’s opinion of his fellow neighbors is quite low, yet it is his driving force behind the instinct of self preservation. Fear is the reason behind any civil unrest in society, as well as the driving force behind the competitiveness between political figures and other individuals in seats of power. Fear that one powerful man may take over the realm of another, or one politician may sway the people and lead them away from a competitor is a constant presence in the lives of these individuals. It is also the natural instinct of preservation which keeps these men from “going too far.”
Hobbes identifies the keeping of peace with the consistent fear of death or failure by those who have the power to sway a relative decision in one direction or another. It is not through tyranny, but through the ongoing self preservation of each individual person which contributes to a peaceful society. Philosophically, if one gives their word, they should keep it lest there be consequence by those it was given to. Politically, this is ideal if taken seriously and indeed, kept. But, unfortunately, this type of fear driven by a lie and the consequences of those lies are not something which is present in this modern day society. Fear drives self preservation and when a politician makes a promise to the public which would secure the safety and well being of that public, these individuals gain the trust, respect, and votes of the people. Politicians do not seem to have this instinct of self preservation, and seemingly falsifies this theory; but, on the other hand there is validity to Hobbes’ statements. The people driven by this fear and self preservation also hold the power, politically, in a democratic society (in theory) and can either choose one who will grant them the desires of the public or choose another candidate who comes close to those ideals. This brings us back to where Hobbes states that the fear in the competitive forces keep these men in power or potential power in check. That particular fear of failure and fear of competition drives these politicians to strive to keep their word and provide the voters and public with what they have promised them from the beginning. So then, the natural instinct of self preservation does have some standing. According to Hobbes’ beliefs and statements, one can determine the closing of a divide by the bridge of fear; connecting power and propriety.
Use of Fear in Modern Politics
In today’s politically charged atmosphere, crime is rampant due to lack of fear; fear of any real punishment and other consequences. The strong arm of the Soviet government kept crime down to a bearable minimum compared to today’s Capitalist Russia, where crime is rampant; organized and/or otherwise. Russian women have very little opportunity and sold into human slavery. Among many social problems, to where many in that region are saying that Communism kept them fed, housed, and employed. For better or for worse, some people react positively to a strong, central government. Continental Africa was controlled predominantly by European Colonial Governments and had the rule of law and was much more stable than the modern day Africa. As unpopular and politically incorrect as it may seem to say so, it is a fact. In many of the African countries today, the people are enslaved by their own government in many ways. The many wars for power, political and otherwise (control of natural resources), result in genocide, murder, and huge influxes of refugees fleeing these warring factions. In most African governments, fear is their only governing strength, without the respect and other attributes which would bond people to a government.
In connection with Hobbes views and political theories concerning fear in politics, President George Bush Sr. was only voted into office for one term; losing the election for a second term to D. Bill Clinton. Why? Many voters noted the raises in taxes when George Bush Sr. was in office. Remembering his promises during elections concerning “no new taxes” and subsequent raises, he was refused a second term by the public. On the surface, citizens only see what is given them, not the dealings behind the closed doors, for the most part. The raises in taxes may have been out of the President’s control and not entirely his fault, but the end result hurt the American taxpayers in their pockets and that was an unforgivable offense to them. To concur with Machiavelli’s theory, President George Bush Sr. was observed as weak to the Republican Party and not respected within those ranks. So what now? Are both of the theories dealing with fear in the use of politics grounded and substantiated by historical fact and precedence? It is the opinion of this writer that these philosophies are. These serve both the preservation of personal power and self through the natural instinct of fear or instilling it in others.
Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in some respects, mainly that fear is the driving force for self preservation; whether it is fear of powerful nobles who have the right to imprison and torture their subjects for no reason, or the fear of personal failure in the view of society. These two theories go hand in hand in today’s world. As politicians run for candidacy, these must be forthcoming concerning their own lives and leave themselves exposed to constant scrutiny and criticism. Fear is prevalent here, as anything deemed unacceptable may “throw them to the wolves” by way of the media and would attract and render their efforts pointless even if they are the most qualified candidate. The stigma of failure in the political world is not one that is easily forgotten, as past politicians are still remembered for their antics, lies, and unacceptable habits amongst citizens of the entire country and sometimes laughed at by the world.
Today, fear is used in politics to subdue public perception when a president or other politician makes a bad choice affecting the entire country. For example, the modern day health care bill which passed was opposed by the majority of voters; yet it passes. Those who speak out against the politicians who pushed it through are labeled as biased individuals who do not care for the poor, or “un-American” or other stigmatic viewpoints. No one in America would want this label, yet this is driven by fear of opposing those in power because there is little recourse.
Propaganda is also another means of instilling fear into the public for political gains; the undeniable support of the unsuspecting public. This tactic has been used for decades, and can be seen in early Cinematography. Presently, Republican claims that the Democratic Party is too lenient with terrorists is a form of propaganda intended to instill fear into the American voter and sway their decision for the upcoming elections. Americans are in fear each and every time they endeavor to travel by airplane and take painstaking precautions at the airport for the sake of National Security and Terrorism threats Nationwide. These political policies have been set in place by the government for the safety and security of Americans, but what about the public’s perception that the government is doing “all they can” to ensure this? Of course this is also a tactic, which has been used along with the tool of fear and it has worked.
In conclusion, both Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes had practical and sound theories pertaining to fear in both the politically powerful and those which serve them. In Modern times, the tool of fear is used for personal and political endeavors and is appropriate for the age we live in; as long as those in power use it to serve the best interests for the country and the citizens who live in it. Machiavelli and Hobbes also had insightful minds concerning the people of any country, that these hold the true power and govern those who only think they have it.