Role of Violence in Machiavelli and Rousseau - Essay Example

? The Role of Violence in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Rousseau’s Social Contract theory Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous work, The Prince and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract are two of the most important works of European literature. These two works have exerted their influence upon the workings of governments, personal relationships and have manifested themselves in many other works of literature as well. While an analysis of these works may lead us to many such influences that these works have had upon the cultural and social evolution of Europe and the world, this paper shall limit itself to an analysis of the role of violence in both these works. Both these works deal with the workings of a state, albeit of different kinds. Both these thinkers have distinct ideas and notions as to how a country or a kingdom should function. There is however, in both these works an unmistakable element of violence that shows itself to the reader who analyses the works carefully. While the presence of this violence may be attributed to the political conditions that existed while they were being written, it also owes a lot to the specific formations of statehood that are envisaged by these thinkers in their works of political theory. Both these works were written with the goal of the establishment of states that are peaceful; that is to say, both these works have intentions that are utopian. However, at some point of time during the establishment of this state or during the running of it, the role of violence does crop up as an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. This paper shall attempt an exploration of these issues and a discussion of its implications. Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract implies the establishment of a state where decisions are to be taken in consultation not with a few individual or a single individual but with the entire populace of a region that has agreed to become a collective. On the face of it, this appears to be a political setup where every member of the society gets a say in the implementation of the activities of the state. The mandate in a society that follows the Social Contract theory of Rousseau would have to be that of every member of the society. This is however, not practically possible as such a scenario would prevent any decision from being taken. This is because it is almost impossible that every member of a society would be in agreement upon every issue that concerns the public. Especially in matters of disputes between members of the same community, this theory would run into a great deal of problems. The only way in which the Social Contract theory can be implemented in a practical way is through coercion of the minority views that are held in a society. Members of a society who hold such views have to be led into accepting the views of the majority. One needs to remember that even though some of the views expressed by Rousseau are fairly democratic in their nature, they are still not completely democratic in spirit. This leaves open the possibilities of coercion through violence that may be practiced by the state and members of communities that share the majority view upon the minorities of a society (as far as their views are concerned; the term is not used to denote race or ethnicity in this context). Apart from the physical violence that is inflicted one also needs to take into account the mental torture that is inflicted upon certain sections of the society that may be then marginalized. The utopian vision of the thinker is thus compromised and the state reverts to the corrupt model that it had followed earlier, that had definite unshakeable hierarchies that led to certain sections of the society remaining subjugated by those above them in the social order. Rousseau’s theories also create new hierarchies since there exists two tiers in the process of governance, one of which shall consist of a person or a group of persons who may then act according to the wishes of the collective of the populace of the state. Such a political setup is always open to manipulation and the use of violence. This can mar the utopian possibilities and potential of such a setup (Rousseau). Niccolo Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, is violent at a much obvious level. The possibilities of violence are unabashedly held up as opportunities for a prince who wishes to consolidate his position in his own state or expand his kingdom. Machiavelli’s words and theories may at first glance appear to be amoral and cruel but the need for the uniting of Italy into a republic that could exist with a reasonable amount of stability impel Machiavelli to take the position that he takes, in The Prince. Machiavelli justifies the use of violence for a person who wishes to gain a certain kingdom for himself. The ability to be violent at strategic points of one’s life is for Machiavelli a constituent of virtu, a word that he uses to describe the qualities that a man would require to become a prince and maintain control over the land that he had acquired for himself. A violent acquisition of a certain land, with one’s own troops or with another’s is immaterial for Machiavelli as long as the objective is achieved, that of acquiring the land. Even after the acquisition of the land, for Machiavelli, the maintenance of the land was a major problem, especially in the presence of states that were perennially at each others’ throats. This is said in the context of the squabbling Italian states that had failed to maintain peace amongst themselves and wars between different princes was a very frequent occurrence. The peace of the Italian states was the main aim of Machiavelli in the composition of his work, The Prince. His aim in writing this work was to convince members of the Medici family to undertake the task of uniting the Italian states under one banner. This was largely due to his own desire for an important post in such an establishment that would be under the control of the Medici family. The desire out of which the creation of The Prince came about may not be a noble one but is in keeping with the spirit of the book which is intensely materialistic and honest about the intentions that it has. The violence that is present in The Prince arises out of a need to transition from one system to the other. Such transitions are always accompanied by violence directed against the party that is in power at that particular point in time. This is exactly the case with certain sections of The Prince where Machiavelli talks of the need to displace certain monarchs for the good of the state. Such violence would then be inflicted upon people of opposing camps without any moral or spiritual compunction since it would distract from the crudely materialistic purposes of the prince and his legions that would seek to displace the opposing camp (Machiavelli). Fear and love are the two founding principles on which Machiavelli rests his treatise on political theory. The Prince emphasizes upon the need for a prince to make his subjects and other princes fear him. Machiavelli insists that it is only fear and not largesse that would be able to procure for a prince the loyalty of his subjects and the friendship of other princes. While this may or may not be true, it is interesting that the fear that can purchase the loyalty of the subjects of a prince originates from the ability that a prince possesses, to inflict violence upon the subjects. It is this fear of being subjected to violence that a person should possess to be a good citizen and for the country to be peaceful. In this condition, there is probably no violence that may ever happen but the possibility of violence looms large like Damocles’ sword above the heads of every subject. The loyalty that is thus purchased is different from that which is purchased through love, which is more sincere. This love, however, according to Machiavelli is fickle, unlike the love that arises in a person out of fear that is permanent and more important for the prince. Even in the later stages of a prince’s rule, Machiavelli insists that it is only the fear of violence that can prevent a population of people from being rebellious and unruly. This violence is thus not, like the earlier mentioned violence, a feature of the initial days of a country or the reign of a prince. The complete reign of the prince would be marked by a fear of violence on the part of the subjects who are unable to be free of this fear because taking any action to be free of a fear of the monarch would be represses and the fear of violence would be realized by the subjects. In a practical sense, Machiavelli’s words may be true since it closes off all possibilities towards a possible rebellion; however, as has been seen in later ages, the resentment that the people of a country feel against their rulers and the discontent that they feel can only be repressed to a certain extent after which it boils over and the entire system has to undergo a paradigm shift. This would not be possible without a great deal of violence being inflicted upon the prince who had sought to make himself invincible by building around himself an aura of fear. The possibility of violence looms large not only for the subjects but beyond a point, even for the prince himself (Machiavelli). This is one of the major reasons as to why The Prince is a text that offers great scope for analysis that may then continue endlessly. Its ability to offer new definitions to the concept of violence is one of the reasons that it continues to interest its modern readers as well. The role of violence that is seen in the two texts discussed above is different, yet similar in certain respects. The aspect of coercion that is in some senses alien to the modern state is peculiar to the theories that are propounded in both these texts. Having said that, the aim of violence in Machiavelli’s text is very different from that of Rousseau’s one. While The Prince intends to maintain the status quo of an oppressive state, it is significant to note how Rousseau’s social contract theory aims to change traditional modes of governance by providing more authority to the masses. This was a revolutionary step for his times which gave great importance to the system of monarchy. The violence that is implicit in the ideas that Rousseau puts forth is explicit in The Prince; not only is it explicit, it is also less democratic in that it arises from the mind of a single individual, the prince of a state. This is different from the violence that we find in the theories of Rousseau that are likely to rise from the masses and is not only crudely physical but also possesses the ability to manifest itself in a more mental way. This movement towards a more mental form of warfare is definitely an advancement that we see in the Social Contract theory. The crudeness of the violence of The Prince can however, be attributed to the historical necessities of the age and country in which Machiavelli wrote his treatise when the unification of the Italian nation required a strong leader, the like of which Machiavelli found in the members of the Medici family. The two texts that have been discussed in this paper are very different. They offer extremely divergent viewpoints on the desirable nature of states. The way in which a state should function as mentioned by these two authors too, is very different. The underlying role of violence in both is, however, unmistakable, however concealed it might be. This violence may be a pointer to the importance that it played in the times that the book was written as well as to the idiosyncratic views held by their respective authors. Works Cited Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth, 1998. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998. Print. Read More