Modern Political Theory reading notes

In the book called The Prince, Machiavelli argues that there are two types of domination: Republics or monarchies. The Prince’s domination that he mentions in his book is a type of monarchy. Despite that in the book called Discourses, Machiavelli deals mostly with Republic type of domination. He is not only explaining this type, but also praising it. The profile of the Prince in the first book is pragmatist, cruel, militarist. He is good at using all kinds of conditions as a tool to make his position stronger and stable. The prince prefers big injuries for poor rebels to get rid of the revenge. He is colonialists to control the land that he occupied to keep the control long lasting. He prefers to give limited power to the religious institutes and supports the weaker part of the society to have balance against more powerful potential oppositions. He is open to despoil the land if he cannot colonize to control it after the occupancy. Arms are more important for the prince than luxury.

In addition, if the prince can avoid the scandals, he does not follow all virtue. According to the author, some virtue practices can ruin the prince’s domination and power. So based on this profile, he does not need to be ethical, but need to avoid scandals. When the prince needs to be cruel to bring order to his land, he should not misuse the mercy. People need to fear at the will of the prince based on Machiavelli’s prince prototype. The prince must be good at deceiving people. I do not how it is possible with all these specialties, but at the same time this prince must avoid being hated. The prince is arming his citizens to make them his volunteer security. The author also mentions that, because it is impossible to arm everyone, this make the disarm parts of the citizens passive.

In my opinion, interestingly based on the parts that I read, The Prince and The Discourses conflict with each other until Machiavelli talks about Monarchy and Republic domination together. It seems like in the first book, he try to create a manual for monarchy and in the other one an alternative practices for Republic domination. When I read them both, this made me think about the author as a pragmatist person who does not have any deep belonging for the both types of ruling. In the first book, we read that The Prince should decrease the power of religious institutions. Machiavelli gave us some examples about this. However, in The Discourses we read some information about “the importance of giving religion a prominent influence in a state.” This is a clear conflict of the author. The author mentions three kinds of government as monarchical, the aristocratic, and the democratic in the text. In addition, if these types fail we learned that they converted to their opposites as monarchy to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy and the popular government to licentiousness. I believe that in the first book, the image of the Prince is equal to tyranny even though Machiavelli mentions is as a Monarchy. Moreover, I think when he mentions tranquility, The Prince and The Discourses link to each other. In The Discourses, when the author talks about the faculty of accusation, I think the profile of his republican ruler getting similar with the image of Prince. Moreover, sadly I think his advices and profiles of Republic domination would be an example of degradation of the republican type of ruling. Especially, he argues that “to found a new republic, or to reform entirely the old institutions of an existing one, must be the work of one man only.” Under this title, I believe that Machiavelli returns to (Tyrannical) Monarchy after working on some kinds of Republic types of government. In my opinion, reforms must come from the roots of the society, naturally from the bottom to alter the government, not from the top to the bottom to get rid of tyranny and dictatorship.

Ultimately, after reading the both work pieces of the author, so far Machiavelli reminded me the Sophists of Greek. In addition, I believe that the virtuosity is equal to being lizard. Nowadays this notion is equal to the politicians, but it seems not ethical. Overall, if the rulers read these books to gains some tactics, it is bad for the citizens, but it is good for us to read them to have some knowledge about the rulers’ mentalities to dominate us.

Meryem Rabia Tasbilek

reading notes

General will require us to make distinctions. In addition, we learned that according to Rousseau, “there is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter considers only general interest, whereas the former considers private interest and is merely the sum of private wills.” (pp. 155) As far as understood, so sometimes we may have to make distinctions between general will and will of all or will of ours when they contradict with each other.

We can see similar explanation in Rousseau’s text: “In fact, each individual can, as a man, have a private will contrary to or different from the general will that he as a citizen. His private interest can speak to him in an entirely different manner than the common interest. His absolute and naturally independent existence can cause him to envisage what he owes the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will be less harmful to others than its payment is burdensome to him…” (pp. 150)

According to Rousseau’s Discourse, I do not think the general will seem to contradict with his argument. Sometimes people’s private will may contradict with the general will, but the argument of Rousseau in general does not refuse this, but he argues that people need to prefer to follow the good of general will. General will require us to make distinction between these two time to time.

Moreover, “this sum of forces cannot come into being without the cooperation of many. But since each man’s force and liberty are the primary instruments of his maintenance, how is he going to engage them without hurting himself and without neglecting the care of that he owes himself? These clauses, properly understood, are all reducible to a single one, namely total alienation of each associate, together with all of his rights, to the entire community. For first of all, since each person gives himself whole and entire, the condition is equal for everyone; and since the condition is equal for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for the others.” (pp. 148) Certainly, Rousseau talks about a clear distinction here which is an exchange in between the general will and a person of the society.

Moreover, Rousseau says that “Finally, in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one. And since there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right that he would grant others over himself, he gains the equivalent of everything he loses, along with the greater amount of force to preserve what he has.” (pp. 148) In my opinion, this distinction is in the keystone of the general will.

            The following section can gives us some additional information about the general will: “If therefore, one eliminates from the social compact whatever is not essential to it, one will find that is reducible to the following terms. Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” (pp. 148)

            Rousseau argues that the general will’s distinction requirement is useful and worth it. “What man loses through the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything that tempts him and that he can acquire. That he gains is civil liberty and the proprietary ownership of all he possesses. (pp. 151) Based on these quotes, general will is the heart of Rousseau’s argument. “...only the general will can direct the focus of the state according to the purpose for which it was instituted, which is the common good… In fact, while it is not impossible for a private will to be in accord on some point with general will, it is impossible at least for this accord to be durable and constant.” (pp. 153) In addition, I think the next quote is also related with the requirement of the distinction in Rousseau’s general will augment: “Natural independence is exchanged for liberty; the power to harm others is exchanged for their own security; and their force, which others could overcome, for a right which the social union renders invincible.” (pp. 158)

Rousseau gives an option for individuals who refuse to participate to the general will in the next following quote: “Thus, in order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly entails the commitment that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to be free.” After reading this part, especially the “forced to be free” statement, I thought that if this has any relation with civil death or not.  Moreover, he argues that “...General will is always right and always tends toward the public utility. However, it does not follow the deliberations of the people always have same rectitude. We always want what is good for us, but we do not always see what it is.” (pp. 155) I thought that he is extremely sure about this, but based on my limited life experience I came across with some people who disagree with general will and, they seemed to me right. I am not sure, how Rousseau is very certain about this. I guess, in this case his argument is not always match with morality, but the motivation is only pragmatist good for the society. In The Prince and Leviathan, it was possible to sacrifice people for the good of the ruling; here it seems that this kind of sacrificing is possible for the collective good, for the benefit of general will.