Assignment 2

Please write a thoughtful and persuasive essay that is no longer than 3 typed pages on the following hypothetical scenario:

You are a political philosopher who is tasked with defending Machiavelli's political thoughts as found in The Prince. Start by explaining why Machiavelli represents a distinctive break with the normative ideals of the classical writers we have studied (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle).

Explain with examples why it is not advisable to just view Machiavelli's thinking as cruel and undemocratic.

End you essay with a thoughtful reflection on the assertion that Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state. What does this mean and how is it relevant to contemporary politics and its emphasis on Realpolitik?

Your essay is due in class (and I mean in class) on Monday October 5, 2009.

Late assignments will be penalized by 5 points per day without exception. And, do not even think about putting your assignment under my door.

Please check your work for spelling and grammar. If you quote someone or you are using a book and/or article to build your argument, cite the references in keeping with academic standards and the rules and regulations of North-West University.

Please note that plagiarism is an illegal form of stealing and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

I know all of you are capable of excellent work. If you have questions please stop by my office (G06).

Have a reflective Heritage Day and enjoyable break!

Machiavelli: The Founder Of The Modern State

The Prince is a deceptively layered book that begs to be read several times. In fact, I expect that you will want to read it again even after you have finished this class. (Image Credit)

I say this because much of what we consider modern politics is rooted in the thinking that Machiavelli develops.

We ended the last post talking about Reakpolitic and its assertion for an amoral, if even immoral, politics aimed at power and survival.

The Prince is said, commonly, to be a book intended to ingratiate Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici who had regained power when the book was being written.

This may be so but we should be warned that Machiavelli is seemingly deceptive in that he aims the book at Lorenzo who inherits power but he also prefers a prince who grabs power via authority that is imposed.

In fact, Chapter 6 is entitled "Of New Principalities that are Acquired Through One's Own Arms and Virtue."

Was he deceiving Lorenzo de Medici? I think he was.

A big part of the character of a prince is about making something out of nothing. A man who is prudent and who can seize power and hold on to power.

Inside of this emphasis Machiavelli tells us that a prince must be ready at all times to go to war.

The powerful and prepared conquer and the weak and unprepared are conquered.

The latter part of this statement is a critique of Christianity that calls on people to be meek and mild. The prince cannot be meek or he will lose power and be dethroned.

A lot of what Machiavelli does in The Prince is to contradict and oppose the classical writers and the Christian church.

He uses the term Virtu as opposed to virtues. Virtu for him is about worldly glory, ambition, risk, aggressiveness, and above all, success.

Remember we talked about the term "dirty hands" as developed by Jean-Paul Satre in his 1948 play Les Mains Sales (which means dirty hands).

No-one should get involved in politics unless they are willing to have "dirty hands". The prince cannot worry about the moral thing to do or spend sleepless nights contemplating what Christianity may expect of him.

Morality, ethics, and religion cannot get into the way of interests. It is for this reason that we say Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state. As you know and expect, the modern state acts in is own narrow interests all the time.

No exceptions.

So politics is dirty and the prince must rise to the occasion and challenge pretenders to his throne by being even dirtier so to speak.

This does not mean that the prince should not appear to be religious, moral, or ethical. The issue of appearance must be aligned with interests.

In other words, if the prince can get his interests by being moral then that is alright. But if he has to be immoral to so then the choice is clear.

This explains the Machiavellian cliché that goes "the ends justifies the means".

But does this mean that the prince is a ruthless dictator who uses cruelty all the time?

Not really. Machiavelli tells us about "cruelty well used" and with judgment that is balanced between what is needed and what must be achieved.

A prudent prince will know what that judgment should look like. So the prince will be warlike and aggressive but even say that he trusts in God if it meets his interests.

Remember how Machiavelli retells the story of David and Goliath. He arms David with a knife! It seems he is saying that the prince should trust in God but bring a knife just in case.

In these terms Machiavelli is very different than our classical political philosophers.

He sees nothing wrong in being deceptive, in lying, assassinating enemies even, if power can be preserved and expanded.

In these terms he goes beyond the worry about a moral politics or the concern with justice as an organic principle of bringing the soul and politics into alignment.

His world is the world as it exists. A world where people are evil rather than good. A world where we front about good but are mostly bad.

Machiavelli may even be said to be an opponent of our common humanity. But is he in total?

We have talked at length about the characteristics of his prince and the virtu he seeks or proposes.

It must, however, be said that Machiavelli also sought to place the prince as protector of the common people. It is here that he saw the legitimacy of the prince located.

He, however, does not ignore the rich and powerful elite. He wants the prince to know them and even engage them if even with an eye on watching them closely.

In the end, he is somewhat of a populist who needs careful consideration before we just toss him aside into the looney bin.

His influence is very strong and there are countless examples that draw on his assessment of what interests should look like in politics.

Machiavelli may come across as distasteful and despicable but he is hardly absent in modern politics even if the current characters are hardly aware of his influence.

Tracing Machiavelli

Machiavelli was born in Florence which was a republic and city state. He lived and worked in Florence at the height of the Renaissance.

He looked at the Ancient or classical writings (those of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and introduced what we call modernity today.

His ambition was to do for political theory what his contemporaries Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo did for the arts (painting and sculpture).

(Statue of Machiavelli in Uffizi: Image Credit)

I have mentioned in class that Machiavelli lived during a vibrant time of tumultuous change and political upheaval.

He grew up under the rule of the powerful Medici family and saw them deposed by a Christian Dominican friar called Savonarola.

The friar tired to press Christian values in Florence but his rule was short lived and he was excommunicated by Pope Alexander VI and executed May 23, 1498.

A republic was re-established and Machiavelli held a kind of diplomatic post (the Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria) for 14 years (1498-1512) until the Medici family returned to power toppling the republic once again.

Lorenzo Medici fired Machiavelli and forced him into exile after a period of imprisonment. Lorenzo Medici is said to have thought that Machiavelli had plotted against his family. (Lorenzo Medici: Image Credit)

Machiavelli then went and lived on a small farm he owned and it is here where he wrote The Prince, The Discourses on Livy, The Art of War, and many letters on politics to friends and associates.

By 1519 Machiavelli won some measure of favour and the Medici family even asked him to write a history of Florence.

The Medici were, however, again deposed in 1527 and Machiavelli was left unemployed and without much political influence as he was now distrusted by the republican government because of his tied to the Medici family.

I guess there is some irony in this twist of fate.

Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21, 1527. He, however, lived long enough to witness Rome falling to a rather hapless Spanish infantry.

His writings gained notoriety in the latter part of the 16th century. For some, his works were considered to be too dangerous for common consumption and they were banned by the church in 1564.

For our purposes, we are focusing on The Prince and its teachings. We begin by making the assertion that Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state.

This assertion is juxtaposed with the manner in which he reoriented the focus on what the nature of political rule, and by implication, its leaders should do to rule.

Machiavelli rejected the idealistic/normative assertions on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

We have studied in some detail the emphasis of these classical writers and find them to focus on virtues that draw on philosophic purity and morality.

Socrates, you may remember, sought a leadership made up of philosophers who debated the esoteric content of politics and leadership.

Plato and Aristotle spend an inordinate amount of time on the nature of justice and the ideals that underpin just rule and just rulers.

Machiavelli is the most prominent thinker in the western tradition to break with the normative political discourse of the classical thinkers we have studied.

He imposes an abrupt kind of politics that can be defined as being skeptical and even obsessed with things deviant and evil.

He calls on us to consider politics as an all-out struggle for power. This struggle is real and cannot be avoided or made nicer with appeals to our ethics and morality.

This is what the term Realpolik seeks to describe.

We turn our attention to Realpolik and its amoral politics.

From Aristotle To Machiavelli

Those of you who have been attending class regularly know that we have covered the aspects of Aristotle's political philosophy that are germane to our introductory class.

I have mentioned that this material will most likely form part of your final exam. You are expected to read Aristotle's Politics I and II.

Pay careful attention to the differences in emphasis between Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.

Remember that Aristotle studied at Plato's university, the Academy, for 20 years and left only after Plato died.

Aristotle is thought to be more grounded than Plato in his many academic works. He was less concerned with recruiting philosophers than Plato. Instead he was concerned with comparing the life of citizens. Toward this aim he collected 158 constitutions.

In this sense, he may even be thought of as one of the first comparative political scientists.

It is most important that you understand Aristotle's assertion that "man is a political animal." Also, connect this assertion to what he defined as the "Zoo Politikon".

Finally, pay special attention to the terms LOGOS and TELOS.

The image that appears above is a "marble bust of Aristotle. Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippus c. 330 BC." (Image Credit)

We are now moving onto Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527).

Machiavelli, born in Florence (Italy), is often said to be a founder of modern political science. The image here is a head-crop "1500 portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito" (Image Credit).

You are expected to read Machiavelli's The Prince which was published in 1532.

See syllabus for all relevant links and study hard!