SUMMARY OF "TRAPPING THE PRINCE:MACHIAVELLI AND THE POLITICS OF DECEPTION MARY G. DIETZ " (my version copy @ur own risk)
Machiavelli’s masterpiece “The Prince” is the foundation of realpolitik. Many of the concepts introduced and explored in the book are the basic ideas driving the modern day realpolitik. Principle among them are the ideas of pursuing “naked self interest”, maintenance of ruler-ship at all costs, and the utility of deceit and manipulation in power games, and centrality of power as an end in and of itself. His ideas have given rise to the term “Machiavellianism”, which means understanding politics primarily in terms of who dominates whom and how successfully.
But political theorists have failed to fully grasp the power of Machiavelli’s intention behind Prince. He has succeeded in hiding his republican tendencies in his writings, and deceived the reader into believing that he actually advises the prince on how to exercise power.
Machiavelli fully understood that crafty assault could be a better option than brute assault to dislodge an enemy. In his various other works and in Prince especially, he has firmly displayed this conviction. But Prince runs in direct contrast to his other writings where he has taken a firm republican stand. In Prince he seems to contend himself by advising an autocrat on how to get absolute and ruthless power.
Scholars try to explain this apparent incongruence by claiming that,
1) Machiavelli saw no other option. Florence could either plunge into absolute chaos or it could be ruled well by Medicis. He wanted to help them (at that particular time) and ingratiate himself with the new rulers of Florence. But this escapes the logic that just one book could not have won him the favours of ruling class (when he had earlier been caught conspiring against them).
2) The book was meant to advise the prince and by this act, expose to the world their machinations and their power plays. But since the book was never bought out for common public even this argument fails.
3) The Prince was written as a book for founder, who will restore order and lay foundations for a republic to emerge. But Machiavelli has not given any description of a republic or how this transformation will be bought about by the founder. Would a man like Machiavelli, who is fully aware of uncertainty of fate, leave this to some chance by which the founder will establish institutions to form a republic?
The conflict between his republican ideas in later works and Prince can only be explained if we see Prince as an act of deceit in itself. He aims to establish a republic, even though he appears to be assisting the Prince. He is exposing princely tricks to republicans, but he intends that the prince will heed the duplicitous advice of Prince, and thereby take actions that will jeopardize his power and bring about his demise.
He traps the prince in following ways.
1) He advises Prince to destroy, live within or restore the freedoms of the newly occupied territory where people were living according to their own laws, before being conquered by Prince. He then concludes that living within such a city is more advisable as prince's residence within his conquered territory renders possession "more secure and durable”. Thus he advises an autocrat to live inside a populace which is fiercely republican and aware of concepts of liberty and freedom.
2) He advises him to befriend the people and treat the nobles with suspicion, as nobles cannot be relied upon, but people can always be trusted in trying times. He advises him to be niggardly. Thus he advises Prince to rely upon people, who are republican and independent, and suspect Nobles, who actually might have helped Prince in subjugating the populace. Also by advising him to be niggardly (a generous Prince can win people’s support and goodwill by spending), he takes away an important support which had earlier helped Lorenzo Medici survive a conspiracy by Pazzis.
3) He advises him to arm the citizens (he would inspire trust in them and history is full of such instances, although he hasn’t given any) and not to construct fortresses. And not to construct fortresses (love from one’s own people is more potent fortress against external invaders; hence no need to construct fortresses against them). They might actually help, if armed, in helping the Prince crush down any rebellion. This advice flies against the logic of not arming the people especially when they are hostile towards the idea of an autocrat ruling over them (Florence had a history of libertarian ideas and armed civilians are more likely to organise plots and conspiracies), and more specifically when Lorenzo’s grandfather himself had disarmed the populace. Thus he advises Prince to move around in a city which is hostile to idea of an autocrat, is armed, and Prince is defenceless against any rebellion as he has been advised against having a fortress.
Thus Prince is an act of deception in itself, as it advises Prince to do something which finally leads to an outcome completely opposite to supposed results of that advice.
He seems to have been inspired by Junius Brutus, who overthrew Roman kings by deceit, first by ingratiating himself with those in power, then undermining them from within. He shows his proclivity for the use of deceit where one lacks brute force.
That, Machiavelli was firmly against Medici is without doubt. His family had a long tradition of supporting the republican ideals and had in past on many occasions run foul of Medicis. His writings were decidedly against Medicis.
He repeatedly extols them but actually criticizes them by juxtaposing this against the elements that bring about the downfall of a society and corrupt it). He warns against those who threaten the liberty of society repeatedly in his texts. He was repeatedly suspected of conspiring against them, and once was tortured and incarcerated (though he himself was against the idea of conspiracies since they rarely succeed).
He differentiates between apparent meaning of any work and its deeper purpose. Political advising involves more than analytical capacity as the analysis is never neutral or scientific but influenced by the values, purposes and political leaning of the advisor.
He compares his work to renaissance artistry, in its ability to present a vast political landscape with all its players and actors, and avoiding a restricted perspective. The ability to see a vast picture in its entirety gives one an ability to see different events not as disconnected instances, but as parts of a richly constituted tapestry, a varied field of competing interests and ambitions. He also uses the artist’s tool of drawing away a viewer’s attention in order to deceive him into believing something, which does not exist or is only a hallucination. He deceives Prince by promising him something, but leading him to something else. After giving him some choices in Prince, he narrows them down so that, the Prince ends up as a puppet of advisor. This is his crafty assault. Lorenzo is led into a trap even as he believes that he is practising realpolitik.
In the end, however, Prince had little impact as Lorenzo never read it. And later on his writings in Prince made republicans believe that he was a supporter of autocracy. They refused him a return to political life.
But political theorists have failed to fully grasp the power of Machiavelli’s intention behind Prince. He has succeeded in hiding his republican tendencies in his writings, and deceived the reader into believing that he actually advises the prince on how to exercise power.
Machiavelli fully understood that crafty assault could be a better option than brute assault to dislodge an enemy. In his various other works and in Prince especially, he has firmly displayed this conviction. But Prince runs in direct contrast to his other writings where he has taken a firm republican stand. In Prince he seems to contend himself by advising an autocrat on how to get absolute and ruthless power.
Scholars try to explain this apparent incongruence by claiming that,
1) Machiavelli saw no other option. Florence could either plunge into absolute chaos or it could be ruled well by Medicis. He wanted to help them (at that particular time) and ingratiate himself with the new rulers of Florence. But this escapes the logic that just one book could not have won him the favours of ruling class (when he had earlier been caught conspiring against them).
2) The book was meant to advise the prince and by this act, expose to the world their machinations and their power plays. But since the book was never bought out for common public even this argument fails.
3) The Prince was written as a book for founder, who will restore order and lay foundations for a republic to emerge. But Machiavelli has not given any description of a republic or how this transformation will be bought about by the founder. Would a man like Machiavelli, who is fully aware of uncertainty of fate, leave this to some chance by which the founder will establish institutions to form a republic?
The conflict between his republican ideas in later works and Prince can only be explained if we see Prince as an act of deceit in itself. He aims to establish a republic, even though he appears to be assisting the Prince. He is exposing princely tricks to republicans, but he intends that the prince will heed the duplicitous advice of Prince, and thereby take actions that will jeopardize his power and bring about his demise.
He traps the prince in following ways.
1) He advises Prince to destroy, live within or restore the freedoms of the newly occupied territory where people were living according to their own laws, before being conquered by Prince. He then concludes that living within such a city is more advisable as prince's residence within his conquered territory renders possession "more secure and durable”. Thus he advises an autocrat to live inside a populace which is fiercely republican and aware of concepts of liberty and freedom.
2) He advises him to befriend the people and treat the nobles with suspicion, as nobles cannot be relied upon, but people can always be trusted in trying times. He advises him to be niggardly. Thus he advises Prince to rely upon people, who are republican and independent, and suspect Nobles, who actually might have helped Prince in subjugating the populace. Also by advising him to be niggardly (a generous Prince can win people’s support and goodwill by spending), he takes away an important support which had earlier helped Lorenzo Medici survive a conspiracy by Pazzis.
3) He advises him to arm the citizens (he would inspire trust in them and history is full of such instances, although he hasn’t given any) and not to construct fortresses. And not to construct fortresses (love from one’s own people is more potent fortress against external invaders; hence no need to construct fortresses against them). They might actually help, if armed, in helping the Prince crush down any rebellion. This advice flies against the logic of not arming the people especially when they are hostile towards the idea of an autocrat ruling over them (Florence had a history of libertarian ideas and armed civilians are more likely to organise plots and conspiracies), and more specifically when Lorenzo’s grandfather himself had disarmed the populace. Thus he advises Prince to move around in a city which is hostile to idea of an autocrat, is armed, and Prince is defenceless against any rebellion as he has been advised against having a fortress.
Thus Prince is an act of deception in itself, as it advises Prince to do something which finally leads to an outcome completely opposite to supposed results of that advice.
He seems to have been inspired by Junius Brutus, who overthrew Roman kings by deceit, first by ingratiating himself with those in power, then undermining them from within. He shows his proclivity for the use of deceit where one lacks brute force.
That, Machiavelli was firmly against Medici is without doubt. His family had a long tradition of supporting the republican ideals and had in past on many occasions run foul of Medicis. His writings were decidedly against Medicis.
He repeatedly extols them but actually criticizes them by juxtaposing this against the elements that bring about the downfall of a society and corrupt it). He warns against those who threaten the liberty of society repeatedly in his texts. He was repeatedly suspected of conspiring against them, and once was tortured and incarcerated (though he himself was against the idea of conspiracies since they rarely succeed).
He differentiates between apparent meaning of any work and its deeper purpose. Political advising involves more than analytical capacity as the analysis is never neutral or scientific but influenced by the values, purposes and political leaning of the advisor.
He compares his work to renaissance artistry, in its ability to present a vast political landscape with all its players and actors, and avoiding a restricted perspective. The ability to see a vast picture in its entirety gives one an ability to see different events not as disconnected instances, but as parts of a richly constituted tapestry, a varied field of competing interests and ambitions. He also uses the artist’s tool of drawing away a viewer’s attention in order to deceive him into believing something, which does not exist or is only a hallucination. He deceives Prince by promising him something, but leading him to something else. After giving him some choices in Prince, he narrows them down so that, the Prince ends up as a puppet of advisor. This is his crafty assault. Lorenzo is led into a trap even as he believes that he is practising realpolitik.
In the end, however, Prince had little impact as Lorenzo never read it. And later on his writings in Prince made republicans believe that he was a supporter of autocracy. They refused him a return to political life.
Comments
Post a Comment