Relationship between The Prince, Leviathan and Invisible Man
Meryem Rabia Tasbilek
In this paper, I will share some
quotes from Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan to
compare, contrast and analyze their perspectives about leadership. However,
because I believe that Machiavelli’s arguments are more related with Ellison’s
Dr. Bledsoe character, I will use more sources from The Prince. I will
also try to add my personal position about their preferences about ruling. I
will compare these two leadership meditations with Ellison’s Dr. Bledsoe
character in Invisible Man as a ruler. The reader will find more
specific explanation about these specific topics in the next several pages. In
addition, the paper will cover some explanations why we need both theorists to
understand leadership.
First of all, I believe that it is
always better to have more comparative and informative sources to understand
political issues and notions. For this reason, Machiavelli’s The Prince
and Hobbes’ Leviathan are very useful foundations for us to understand
leadership. In my opinion, we are able to learn more about a ruler especially
the Monarchic ones in The Prince’s than Leviathan. On the other hand, even
though Hobbes includes the rulers to his audience, it seems like his main
concerns is the ruled people and the nature and obligations of people in the
society, because his main concern is creating a society rather than creating a
manual for a ruler. Moreover, both of them have similar emphasizes about the
importance of knowing himself and others for the ruler to understand and govern
the people. For instance Machiavelli mentions that “for the same way that
landscape painters station themselves in the valleys in order to get a good
view of the plains, so it is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the
nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of the prince”
(4). Similar to Machiavelli, Hobbes also argues that “He that is to govern to
whole Nation, must read in himself, not this, or that particular man; but
Man-kind: which though it be hard to do, harder than to learn any Language, or
Science” (83). It is interesting to see that even for different motivations,
the solution to create a “good” ruler for Machiavelli or a peaceful society for
Hobbes are all related with “read thy
self.”
In addition, Machiavelli categorizes
all mankind dominations either as republics or monarchies. In The Prince,
he only deals with Monarchies (5). Machiavelli’s ideal prince is so pragmatist
and cannot and should not trust anyone: “You find enemies in all those whom you
have injured by occupying that domination, and you cannot maintain the
friendship of those who have helped you to obtain this possession, as you will
not be able to fulfill their expectations” (6). I think this part is a good fit
for Dr. Bledsoe’s perspective about his social environment. For him, everybody
is a potential enemy and to keep his powerful position stable, he never let someone
to be his real friend. It seems that he keep a distance with people (143). On
the other hand, Hobbes argues that:
If any man
desires the same thing, which never the less they cannot both enjoy, they
become enemies; and in the way to their End, endeavor to destroy, or subdue one
another… If one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient Seat, others may
probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess, and
deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life or
liberty. (Leviathan 184)
Both of the authors have similar
suggestions and beliefs about not trusting the others to keep the power stable.
Only, Hobbes emphasizes that this condition is a product of equality and the
human kind’s passion about competition poisons peaceful society (38). When the
protagonist, the invisible man, talks with anger and tells Dr. Bledsoe that he
will go to Mr. Norton and made a complain about him, because of the nature of
Dr. Bledsoe’s ruling mentality and to keep the custom of the college rigid he
decided to exile the protagonist. In my opinion, Dr. Bledsoe’s fake
recommendation letters and his behaviors against the protagonist is a good
match with Machiavelli’s advices. For instance, Machiavelli suggests that “for
it must be noted, the men must either be caressed or else annihilated; They
will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones;
the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his
vengeance” (9). I believe that these statements are extremely perfect
explanations of Dr. Bledsoe’s “malicious” letters’ motivation and unexpectable
content. We may see these letters as evil, but for Machiavelli, they function
very well and are necessary. Dr. Bledsoe could simply deport the protagonist,
but he did not find this injury enough and decided to write the uniquely weird
and evil letters to several people and he did not sent these letters by
himself, he made the protagonist carry them to destroy his own hope
unconsciously.
Truly, Dr. Bledsoe followed Machiavelli’s
theoretical advices probably as a result of his leadership instinct. For
instance, in The Prince Machiavelli says that same as the hectic fevers, the
opponents people “at their beginning are easy to cure, but difficult to recognize,
but in course of time when they have not at the first recognized and
threatened, become easy to recognize and difficult to cure” (11). For some of
us, Dr. Bledsoe’s decisions against the protagonist may seem extreme, but based
on the Machiavelli’s leadership meditations, he is a perfect example. Not only
Machiavelli, but also Hobbes has similar suggestions in Leviathan:
“Therefore before names of Just and Unjust can have place, there must be some
coercive Power, to compel men equally to performance of their Covenants, by the
terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach
of their Covenant” (202). By this way, the benefit of the general group and
their Covenant can be safe. We are able to see the protagonist’s acceptance and
obey for Dr. Bledsoe’ practices, for the same reason, too. He says that
“somehow, I convinced myself; I had violated the code and thus would have to
submit to punishment” (Invisible Man 147). It is possible to read this statement
related with Hobbes’ Covenant notion.
In
addition, Machiavelli was arguing in The Prince that “Whoever becomes
the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by
it.” This cruel, pragmatist and paranoiac perspective can be seen Dr. Bledsoe’s
reactions against the protagonist. Dr. Bledsoe was saying that “I’ve made my
place in it and I’ll have every Negro in the country hanging on tree limbs by
morning if it means staying where I am” (Invisible Man 143). By using these
statements, this seems that he sees every men even his own races as potential
enemies against his position. That is why the protagonist’ behavior was a
threat for Dr. Bledsoe. It is better to remember Leviathan here: “Every
man is Enemy to every man; the same is conquest to the time, wherein men live
without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention
shall furnish them withal…” (186). Hobbes was talking about War here, but it
seems like we can adjust all of his statement for the social competition and
power conflicts, too.
Moreover, in Invisible Man,
Dr. Bledsoe adds that “I do not even insist that it was worth it, but now I am
here and I mean to stay-after you win the game, you take the prize and you keep
it, protect it; there’s nothing else to do” (143). All of these samples from
Dr. Bledsoe’s mentality is a perfect match with Machiavelli’s leadership model,
do everything to keep your position and power, do it even cruelly, but not
always openly, do it cleverly he advises. By practicing all these advices
wisely, is equal to Machiavelli’s virtû as virtuosity notion that means a skill
to handle. Machiavelli also suggests that even though “there are two ways of
becoming prince which cannot be attributed entirely either to fortune or to
ability” (31), he argues that “a prince must live with his subjects in such a
way that no accident of good or evil fortune can deflect him from his course”
(35). This seems like Dr. Bledsoe’s motivation of his cruelty on the
protagonist. He could not put his position at any risk. In addition, Hobbes
talks about similar things to eliminate the other powers by using power to
secure himself, but in Leviathan it seems more general determination about the
mankind rather than Machiavelli’s specific evaluations and suggestions about
the rulers. Hobbes mentions that:
And from
difference of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself, so
reasonable, as Anticipation; that is by force, or wiles, to master the persons
of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger
him… And by consequence, such augmentation of domination over men, being
necessary to a man’s conservation; it ought to be allowed him. (184-185)
In this part, Hobbes rationalizes
the oppression and control over men to gain the security of the society. This
might be a good interpretation of Dr. Bledsoe’s practices and his unmerciful
statements while he was talking with the protagonist. For both of them, the
main goal is the good of general structure and people rather than individuals.
To fulfill this goal, some people can be sacrificed by a ruler. For instance,
Hobbes equalizes the notion cruelty with power of the secure as individual
practices (126), but when it is practices for the good of the society it is
different. It is possible to see similar practices and suggestions in The
Prince: “He must, however, take care not to misuse this mercifulness,
Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, but his cruelty had brought order to
Romagna, united it… A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of
cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united…” (60). Machiavelli also
concludes that “with regard to being feared and loved, that men love at their
own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must
rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others, and he
must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred” (63). I believe one of the reason
that Dr. Bledsoe left a pretended open door for the protagonist for returning
and letters for infinite, useless hope was this motivation of avoiding the
hatred for himself and make him weaker in the future with this hope.
Moreover, Machiavelli’s pragmatist
ruler profile is also a good match with Dr. Bledsoe and the protagonist’s
understandable surprise after he came across with Dr. Bledsoe’s behavioral
switch:
It is not,
therefore, necessary for a prince to have all the above-named qualities, but it
is very necessary to seem to have them… Thus it is well to seem merciful,
faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the
mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to
change to opposite qualities.” (The Prince 65)
Because, in the students’ mind, Dr. Bledsoe
was an ideal model, but he was able to call “N” word to another African
American person when he took of his formal mask. He went even further and said
that “Your arms are too short to box with me, son. And I haven’t had to really
clip a young Negro in years… They haven’t been as cocky as they used to” (144).
This is a cold blood, inhumane statement, but in his masked profile he is not
the same person who can use these kinds of language. In addition, to be more
strong in his position, he seems like he internalized the dominant power’
language pattern and labels. He is good at virtû as virtuosity in his formal
position. He was praying during the service deeply, but on the other hand his
reaction is extremely different than a person who has been doing all those
prayers and gave those lectures. In addition, his behavior is a good
translation of The Prince’s “and they do not know how to live in freedom, so
that they are slower to take arms, and a prince can win them over with the
greater facility and establish himself securely,” statement (19). Dr. Bledsoe
was aware of his power and the protagonist's weakness when the protagonists
threaten him to complain about him to Mr. Norton. For this reason, he became crueler.
Dr. Bledsoe emphasizes that:
Negroes,
don’t control this school or much of anything else, haven’t you learned even
that?.. I control it… The only ones I pretend to please are big white fold, and
even those I control more than they control me. This is a power set-up, son,
and I am at the controls. You think about that. When you buck against me,
you’re bucking against poor, rich white folk’s power, the nation’s power-which
means government power! (Machiavelli 142)
From the protagonist's perspective
Dr. Bledsoe's behavioral switch was unexpectable. We are able to see this in
his statements like: “Just inside the building I got another shock. As we
approached a mirror Dr. Bledsoe stopped and composed his angry face like a
sculptor, making it a bland mask, leaving only the sparkle of his eyes to
betray the emotion that I had seen only a moment before” (102). Being able to
see this without watching or expecting to see it must be very chockfull, but
the protagonist has his own virtû as virtuosity to survive such as
rationalizing the situation. In addition, in Leviathan we learned that:
In the
nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, Competition;
Secondly, Difference; Thirdly, Glory. The first, market men invade for Gain;
the second for Safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use Violence,
to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle;
the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a
different opinion, and any other signs of undervalue, either direct in their
Persons, or by reflection in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their
Profession, or their Name. (Machiavelli 185)
We are able to see all of these
causes in Dr. Bledsoe's quarrel.
In addition, in The Prince,
we learned that Machiavelli was suggesting arming the citizens. He was arguing
that “for by arming them these arms become your own.” I thought, Dr. Bledsoe
could forgive the protagonists to practice this method, but I guess he did this
part for the rest of the school by creating a surface for them to study in his
College. He followed the white men’s practices by giving a space for him to
rule and not giving the same opportunity to all Africans. I believe that this
is equal with the next Machiavelli argument: “And since all the subjects cannot
be armed (in this case this can be education and power), when you give the
privilege of arms to some, you can deal more safely with the others” (77). I
was always surprised to see some minorities and especially African Americans in
the history who could reach quite good positions during the heaviest racist
atmospheres. I do not want to hide or ignore these people’s struggles and
passion to reach their positions, but most of the time I understand this as a
white policy to control rest of the oppressed minority population. In different
conditions, arming some of the subjects to control the rest can be various
ways. This can be education or some political position; it does not need to be
only traditional arming. It is a tool for assimilation and also a useful way to
create tokenistic fallacies in the society. Creating imbalanced power inside
the group of the minorities creates advantages for the rulers and alienations
for the advantaged ones from their groups. Dr. Bledsoe is a perfect example for
this especially when he called the protagonist “Nigger.”
Moreover, in Machiavelli argues
that:
It is also
very profitable for a prince to give some outstanding example of his greatness
in the internal administration… When it happens that someone does something
extraordinary, either good or evil, in civil life, he must find such means of
rewarding or punishing him which will be much talked about. And above all a
prince must endeavor in every action to obtain fame for being great and
excellent. (Machiavelli 82)
I believe that this mentality is the main
reason of Dr. Bledsoe’s cruel, extreme behaviors against the protagonist. Dr.
Bledsoe is a great sample of a ruler whose character is shaped by Machiavelli's
arguments that he mentions in The Prince. I am not sure if he is aware of this or
not, but it is amazingly clear. As a reader we may think that Dr. Bledsoe could
domesticate the protagonist inside the college during his education, but he saw
a stronger potential on him compared to the other regular students and rule
challengers. For this reason, he did not want to leave any fortune to the
protagonists to create a possible future opposition potential in his “own”
environment. Also, by letting Mr. Norton to see the slum part of the area,
according to Dr. Bledsoe, the protagonist violated the unwritten covenant as I
mentioned before, so he must be punished to benefit the other covenant
followers, the college and to keep the covenant, the rule of the college stable
and rigid. It is better to remember Hobbes’ argument about this kind of situation:
“When a covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust: And the definition of
Injustice, is no other than the not Performance of Covenant. And whatsoever is
not Unjust is Just” (202). For this reason, according to Hobbes, Dr. Bledsoe’s
decision about the protagonist is not the matter of injustice, but the
protagonist’s irresponsible behaviors about Mr. Norton is unjust. To practice
the just, Dr. Bledsoe needs to punish the protagonist.
Moreover, we may also mention The
Prince’s fortune argument. Machiavelli was arguing that “the prince who bases
himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes. I also believe that
he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and
similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times”
(92). It is clear that in Dr. Bledsoe’ decisions and plans against the
protagonist are very similar with this mentality. Dr. Bledsoe did not want to
have any gap in his power and campus system. He does not want to leave his
future to any fortune. He also tries to not leave any chances for the
protagonist in New York by writing these hateful and unethical “recommendation”
letters. He was very systematic to fulfill his plan. He was following a similar
path with Machiavelli’s argument such as: “whoever is the cause of another
becoming powerful is ruined himself; for that power is produced by him either
through craft of force; and both of these are suspected by the one who has been
raised to power” (14). Because, he did not want to ruin himself, his position
and the order of the collage, he did whatever he can.
Ultimately, Machiavelli’s
The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan have similar and different
arguments for their perspectives about leadership. In addition, I believe it is
better to have both theorists to understand leadership deeper. Machiavelli and
Hobbes can give us a lot of hint about the rulers’ practices and their
reasoning patters. If we are aware of the rulers’ mentality and how they
implement their goals to keep the power in their hands, as a society we may
create more balanced relationships with them. Both of them light the way for
different parts of leadership and the obligation of the society. Hobbes is more
focus on different parts of the society and their obligations rather than
creating some tactics for a single ruler in Leviathan. His model is more
collective than Machiavelli’s model and his audience are various than the
target of The Prince. Machiavelli’s the main concern was keeping the
power in the same hand by the help of all politic tools. However, it was
interesting to see the similarities in the quotes that I chose from both
theorists. In this paper, I tried to compare, contrast and analyze them with
the support of some useful quotes and create some relations between these two
writers’ claims with Ellison’s Dr. Bledsoe character in Invisible Man. I
also tried to add my personal position about their preferences about their ruling
preferences with my commentaries.
Works
Cited
Ellison,
Ralph. Invisible Man. New York: Vintage International, Random House.
1980.
Hobbes,
Thomas. Leviathan. New York: Penguin Group, Penguin Classics. 1985.
Machiavelli,
Niccolo. The Prince. New York: The Modern Library, Random House. 1950.
