Machiavelli: The Prince - Book Report/Review Example

Machiavelli: The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the most famous, or conceivably most infamous, DIY manual in all of western politics. His compendium of twenty-six chapters of political gold contains the template for potential tyranny: the control of a state by a single, self-serving “prince.” The Prince was 350 years ahead of its time. Machiavelli’s work stood in such blunt dissimilarity to society’s ideals of government that he was fortunate he was dead once his treatise circulated, else he would’ve faced execution by the church. Regardless of its morality, The Prince carved a new vision of the importance of virtue and vice in politics that remains applicable to contemporary business strategy. This essay examines Machiavelli’s The Prince in terms of how it diagnoses what is wrong with the strategic decisions being made by society, and how the author leads the individuals and groups to consider new strategic directions. There are a variety of ways that Machiavelli diagnoses what is wrong with the strategic decisions being made by society. In these regards, Machiavelli gradually introduces a redefined, politically grounded approach that is distinct from the corrupted moral shackles and governmental ineptitude of the current society. Controversially, he was one of the first individuals to depart from the idea of politics as an instrument of religion (Beebe 2007, p. ix). Machiavelli wanted to transform politics into a science “[without] blandishment or superfluous ornament” (Machiavelli 2008, p. 4) that “[goes] directly to the effectual truth…without imagination of it” (61). For example, his clinical description of state maladies resonates as if a doctor as he describes “disorders [which] may be seen as they arise” (10), which princes “can remedy [before they] are great” (10). These clinical descriptions stood in contrast to societies method of “governance by fortune and by God…[allowing fortune to demonstrate] her power where virtue has not been put in order to resist her” (98). Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli lays a framework for politics without the ambiguous tenets and politically crippling rules of the church that often led to the “ruin [of the state]” (16). The medieval Christian idea of a “divine government” does not factor into his education of a ruling statesman, for this issue does not aid statesmanship, or the prince, and is therefore redundant. Furthermore, Machiavelli reforms the reader’s understanding of faith, virtue, and other archetypes of statesmanship in diagnosing society’s strategic decisions. Ultimately, each finalized concept of Machiavellian governance stands in stark juxtaposition to its traditional counterpart. Machiavelli further diagnoses the problems of traditional society’s strategic decisions through the contrast he establishes between traditional ethics and his new outlook. Machiavelli believes that the government should focus on the stability of the state rather than the public’s virtue. This move to secularize governmental concepts attempts to revive Italy from her “slavery and disgrace” (Machiavelli 2008, p. 53) brought forth, according to Machiavelli, by rulers lacking prince-like acumen. Machiavelli introduces a new understanding of state-related concepts of his time, such as faith, virtue, and vice to begin his process of change. Aware of the hostile social climate, Machiavelli eases the reader into a changing definition of faith. At first he mentions this concept of statecraft when discussing “the faith that the king had pledged to the pope” (15), referring to faith as an oath that leaves no room for radicalism. Next, Machiavelli presents his criticism of Agathocles that “you cannot call it virtue…to be without faith” (35) and graduates faith, for the reader, into the realm of Christianity. However, he inserts a personal enquiry soon after; he “does not see why [Agathocles, the murderer,] has to be judged inferior to any most excellent captain” (35). Machiavelli allows the reader to slip into his or her comfort zone before unsettling his or her beliefs, as if carefully heating a volatile chemical. Machiavelli truly knows why Agathocles must be held inferior. Above all else, Agathocles broke the word of God, according to the Catholic Church, and is consequently a sinner. Through this pattern of increasingly controversial insertions, Machiavelli seduces individuals on the edges of traditional morality to gradually slip into passivity, and perhaps accept his thought tract as logical. To enhance this process, Machiavelli ensures that references to the pragmatism of religious faith are exponentially more negative than those to any political faith. Contrary to the moral assumptions of traditional society, Machiavellian faith reflects a positive, pragmatic connotation compared to references of religious faith: “princes who have done great things are those who have taken little account of [religious] faith” (69), and “those whom you suspected become faithful [, or loyal,] and those who were faithful remain so” (83). This division between traditional morals and his new approach functions as both a diagnosis of society’s strategy, as well as a direction forward for new strategists. In addition to diagnosing traditional society, Machiavelli leads the reader to consider new strategic directions. Machiavelli constantly assures the reader that if he or she practices prince-like strategies they will gain success. Machiavelli encourages the reader to practice the “desire to acquire…[he or she] will be praised” (Machiavelli 2008, p. 16), or “judged honorable” (71). Machiavelli likely understood that the reader would not practice this prince like strategy, but he presents these strategies as socially acceptable so that the readers might accept any governmental change crafted with similar methods. It was not a mere coincidence that his prince’s actions left little room for conscience, without care “of the infamy of cruelty” (65). He understood human nature enough to realize his radical views, as a potent medicine, must be administered gradually. Nevertheless, to speed the process of exposure, Machiavelli simultaneously transforms virtue as he transforms morality. Machiavelli has been criticized on these grounds. Zerba (2004, p. 215) indicates that for Machiavelli virtue is solely determined by own his perspective. Conversely, Fischer (2000, p. 28) argues that he evolves virtue from Aristotle’s assessment of “a good man” of moderation, into a quality of courage, manliness, and astute statesmanship. Similarly, Machiavelli introduces vice “which, if pursued results in one’s security and well-being” (62). Ultimately, the deconstruction and redefinition of traditional moral concepts constitutes Machiavelli’s first strategic directive. There are a variety of ways that Machiavelli implements specific directives to lead the reader to consider new strategic directions. While from an overarching context Machiavelli’s directs individuals and organizations to adopt these new perspectives on morality, he additionally contains specific strategic actions that exemplify this new approach. A prominent consideration in these regards involves the nature of political action. One of the seminal strategic pieces of advice that Machiavelli advances occurs in regards to the nature of revenge. Machiavelli indicates that, “men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge” (Machiavelli 2001, p. 12). This statement indicates that when taking strategic action one must consider two polarities of action – pampering or annihilation. The main insight here is that if an individual plays the middle-ground and only enacts slight harm or distress on a competing party, then the individual is at constant risk of retribution. Subsequently, Machiavelli indicates that if an offensive action must be taken, it should be done in such a way that the object of the action is entirely annihilated. Again these strategic actions fall within the spectrum of Machiavelli’s overarching strategic shift away from traditional social actions. Beebe (2007) argues that one can witness a modern parallel to such strategic directives in terms of recent political conflicts within the United States of America. Specifically, this country engaged in offensive actions against Iraqi in the early 1990s. Rather than completely revamping the country’s government, however, the United States left the region. Through the intervening years Iraq continued to cause political strife and resulted in the United States eventually resorting to complete annihilation of the Saddam Hussein regime. Ultimately, Machiavelli’s proclamation in these regards is as apt for an individual’s strategic choices as it is larger business or governing bodies. Machiavelli’s heralding of these aggressive strategic actions is thematic throughout the text. In addition to promoting complete annihilation, he heralds the actions of war. Machiavelli states, “A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler” (Machiavelli 2001, p. 58). In this instance, Machiavelli is indicating that a prince’s singular objective should be warfare. While within the context of the text Machiavelli is speaking in literal terms, from a strategic standpoint one recognizes that Machiavelli is also speaking figuratively. In this way the strategic direction of an individual and a business is such that they must always be operating through aggressive maneuvering. One recognizes that this statement can be recognized as one of Machiavelli’s fundamental motivating principles, as the rest of his strategic directives can be read with this as an underlining feature. As the text progresses, Machiavelli further emphasizes the importance of war indicating that, “it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank” (58). Again, there is the recognition that such practices have played out in modern society. Garver (1980, p. 99) speaks of the direct parallel to Winston Churchill’s appointment as Prime Minister throughout World War II as the centrality of war in leadership. There is the additional recognition of historical instances of this occurrence, implemented from the Roman Empire to the modern Western World. Machiavelli’s thematic implementation of the strategist as engaging in warfare is witnessed in a variety of contexts. One notable example occurs in terms of persuasion. In this way he states, “[P]eople are by nature changeable. It is easy to persuade them about some particular matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion. Hence it is necessary to provide that when they no longer believe, they can be forced to believe” (Machiavelli 2008, p. 23). In this instance one recognizes Machiavelli’s implementation of warfare as a primary strategic directive, as he extends the nature of persuasion to include force. In this way Machiavelli is differentiating between forms of verbal persuasion and actual strategic actions. In terms of larger business directives one recognizes that this is a mode of strategic action that considers change in terms of more essential notions. This perspective is further exemplified in Machiavelli’s perspective on whether it is better to be loved of feared. In these regards, he indicates, “Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present” (70). Here there is the recognition that persuading an individual through love or similar actions is only effective to an extent, when in actuality the individual must have control enough to force action. Within the context of the modern business climate one might draw a parallel between this directive and the extent that an organization should implement corporate social responsibility. In conclusion, this essay has examined Machiavelli’s The Prince in terms of how it diagnoses what is wrong with the strategic decisions being made by society, and how the author leads the individuals and groups to consider new strategic directions. Within this spectrum of investigation the essay has argued that Machiavelli situates his overarching argument in direct opposition to traditional government and religious perspectives on ethics and morality; additionally the essay demonstrates that Machiavelli contextualizes these strategies to further enhance their viability. In terms of strategic directions its demonstrated Machiavelli implements a variety of strategies contingent on this new vision of government and ethics, including a new turn towards warfare. Ultimately, the text presents a powerful account of strategic actions that continue to hold relevance in the contemporary business and political climate. References Beebe, P. (2007), The Machiavellian Enterprise; A Commentary on The Prince. New York: Tangent Press. Fischer, M (2000), Well-ordered License: On the Unity of Machiavellis Thought, Lexington Book Garver, E. (1980), "Machiavelli’s "The Prince": A Neglected Rhetorical Classic", Philosophy & Rhetoric 13.2: 99–120 Machiavelli, N. (2008), The Prince, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zerba, M. (2004), "The Frauds of Humanism: Cicero, Machiavelli, and the Rhetoric of Imposture", Rhetorica 22.3: 215–240 Read More