Tuesday, September 17, 2019
#4 The Prince by Machiavelli (ym)
The Prince, written by Machiavelli is the first book ever to be about how to be a politician. In his book, the focus was: the extent fundamental characteristics of human beings have an effect on national security of a state. However, because he tried to make his book as concise as possible, he disregarded the complexity of human beings, and failed to consider all the different exceptions of human beings and their actions. Machiavelli's strong belief in power summarizes the entire book. The supreme proposition in the build up of authorities and the case when that is feared as the power of revenge by the rivalry.
Although Machiaelli is basically correct in terms of his different themes he brings up, one of the limitations is that Machiavelli categorized 1. the prince, 2. the nobleman, and 3. the public with only one unit, which is "power". Throughout the book, the content is written from the side of those in power viewing the people who does not have power by using the legalities. It is lacking the third person perspective that can critically analyze the position of both the prince and the people. Also, in order to analyze a nation, the single unit of measurement, in this case "power", failed to encompass the complexities and flexibility of a working government.
Another limitation is the contradiction between realism and idealism. Although Machiavelli invented the concept of realism, the text is still idealistic because he eliminated all the backgrounds and uniqueness that he had to consider.
William B. Allen, in Machiavelli and Modernity, stated that "... At the very last, politics becomes the management of symbols in which fewer and fewer people believe." which is very true and can be related to the current Japanese society for an example. As an International Student from Japan, I was surprised by how Americans have their interests in US politics, that they can have a whole debate together. This will not be happening this frequent in Japan, and it is actually proved by its low voting rate by the younger generation. It is so obvious from the data how people are not interested in their own country's government.
Overall, Machiavelli left the greatest question of: what the other factor than "power" that is able to form and sustain the government is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear ym,
ReplyDeleteI generally concur with your intimation that Machiavelli makes generalizations about human nature and disregards the complexity of human beings, although there are instances where I believe he succinctly captures the nuances and idiosyncrasies associated with human agency.
I find the quote from Machiavelli and Modernity to be quite intriguing. However, I wouldn’t regard it as an axiom. I think that in part due to its imperial and postwar history, Japan is an aberration among industrialized countries in terms of youth disengagement from politics. Notwithstanding, I have yet to talk to a Japanese youngster who is passionate about politics, which is unfortunate. Politics should not just be the domain of silver-haired septuagenarians.
Dear Oghosa Cosmopolitan,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comment. I feel lots of differences being in the United States actually, because it is so outstanding how young generations in Japan do not have much opportunity to learn about politics. For an example, there was an election in April, and I had the right to vote since I am over 18. Among the various candidates, I decided to look up online to look through each of their themes and campaigns. However, almost none of the candidates have any kind of social media accounts. Which, it is so different here in the US. I feel like Japanese teenagers should exchange ideas with teenagers around the world (like the US) to discuss about how we can change this kind of society, because otherwise we will not have anyone who is interested in politics at all, and we might not have any candidates in the near future...