I think it is important to understand the kairos and audience of Mariavelli's The Prince in order to understand the text. Machiavelli was a prosperous politician in Florence until he made enemies with the wrong people. During political upheaval, Machiavelli took a stance with the anti-Medici Republicans, which would have been good for his career had they not taken power. The Medici family became the new rulers of Florence and Machiavelli found himself exiled for the last 14 years of his life. It was during this time that he wrote The Prince. I believe that it is important to know the context or kairos here because it effects Machiavelli's audience. His immediate audience was the Medicis. Perhaps he wanted to give tips to the Medici's in hopes that they would bring him back into Florence to become a political advisor. Therefore, we should read The Prince knowing that Machiavelli was a politician who wanted to be welcomed back into society. With this in mind, I specifically want to discuss the following idea: “...one would like to be both the one (feared) and the other (loved); but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.”
While it might be hard to combine being feared and loved, that is still seen as the ideal leader according the The Prince. This is a point that I agree with. I believe that the only leader who completely encompasses ultimate fear and love is God. It is up to your personal relationship with Him to decide whether you feel more fear or love, but His position demands that you fear and love Him.
Thinking of a society where the rulers were feared, I think about the early 1800's in the Cotton Belt. Slaves feared their masters and for good reason, blacks didn't have the right to go to court, to vote, or to leave without their masters permission. Additionally, a slave could be killed if they retaliated against punishments that their masters inflicted. In this society we know that fear did not win for the slaveholders. I know that my analysis breaks down because it wasn't the slaves that ultimately ended slavery and not every slave was afraid of their masters, but this does show that perhaps being feared is not the best type of leadership.
Nice post and analysis. I have always kind of gotten hung up on this idea that a good leader is to be feared and loved. I'm not really sure how you can have both emotions about one person, but I guess Machiavelli had the answer. While fear does seem to have more power and control behind it, I would much rather be loved and be followed out of respect than fear.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting to think about which way is more effective. Or if both are needed. I've had leaders of both types before. I completed a military camp, and it was fear of being on the drill instructor's bad side that got me to follow his commands with exactness. I've had Bishops who I never feared because I knew of the love they had for me at the beginning. I think it depends on the situation, and how you decide to respond. Great post, thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument! We find contradicting phrases (in the current cannon of scripture) about God's nature, but, as a general rule, we find a plethora of verses that equivocate to "God is Love," and only Love, and "Perfect love casteth out all fear."
ReplyDeleteI learned last semester, while studying world literature, that the most frequently repeated commandment phrase (as it is expressed in commanding language) is "fear not."
Food for thought...