Daniel Wood 2nd Essay Hum 1B Mesher

I Wont Always Be Good, But Thats Not Bad

Like the title character learns in the recent Disney animated film, Wreck-it Ralph, one must recognize the setting and circumstances they are given by fortune, and act within those confines of fate in order to find success. Therefore, if circumstance demands a villain, one must play the part. Ralph inhabits a video game and has been programmed to be the ga mes antagonist. His problem is that he doesnt want to be treated like a bad guy. Yet, if he doesnt act the part, the game will be out of order, and he and all the other game residents would be left homeless. Even though he isnt a prince, I couldnt help thinking of some Machiavellian advice that could help him achieve his goal of finding favor with the townsfolk living in the game with him. I know some would argue against this idea, considering this is a family film, and Machiavelli has been colored in a dark fashion. But I would disagree. Even though the ideas and practices portrayed in Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince are morally loose and devoid of ethics, they cannot be categorized as evil. So I have set out to dissect a handful of Machiavellis larger points; whether it is better to be loved or feared, his tactics and position on ambition and conquest, and how to use fortune as an asset or at least avoid it being the cause of downfall. These ideas not only would apply to Ralphs situation, but also to many aspects of modern day life. Whether a CEO of a large corporation, a fast food restaurant manager, or even the head of

a household, Machiavellis ideas are merely a route to take in order to be assertive and to take control of whichever situation one might be in. Firstly, I will discuss Machiavellis answer to the question of clemency or cruelty, or if it is better to be loved or feared. This, I believe, is the central dilemma for many people in leadership roles today and at the time of writing for The Prince. This almost seems to not apply for princes, because they dont depend on votes from the public to attain and keep office like those running or holding a senate seat today. Dont forget, however, there may not be a limit to a princes time in office, but in Machiavellis reality, it could be more often that the princedom is attacked by outside forces and a prince needs the vote of confidence from his subjects in the form of going to battle for him. Machiavelli writes that it is of course advantageous to be loved, but it doesnt commonly occur, and really isnt in the princes power. Machiavelli states that, . . . since being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself, a wise Prince should build upon what is his own. . .(pg. 45) A subject loving their prince is their choice and, even if they have been successful under a princes rule, can choose to hate him for whatever reason. Also, Niccolo points out that even if you are loved, it can be lost in times of pressure. He writes, . . . because men are a sorry breed, (love) is broken on every whisper of private interest (pg. 44). As a result, a person in power shouldnt focus on being loved, and instead focus on avoiding hate. Which brings me to the side of this question that is within a princes control, cruelty. Machiavelli believes that cruelty is a tool to be wielded with care. He states that being cruel is a necessary action that when used in moderation can be coined as having ruthless perseverance for a good cause. Timo Airaksinen, describes this very well in his article, Against

All the Odds: Machiavelli on Fortune in Politics, by stating, Machiavelli condemns cruelty, which entails excessive violence which is too dear to the perpetrator. He enjoys it. Ruthlessness is different as it means courageous determination (Donskis pg. 14). In other words, hes saying the ends justify the means, as long as the means arent too extreme. One will often do wrong to a few in order to do right for the whole of the princedom. In his article on Machiavelli, Vincent Barnett describes it as, Cruelty was used well when it was employed once and for all, to defend personal safety and the good of all citizens; it was used badly when it continued to occur, growing in intensity as time went on, without any specifically focused goal (Barnett pg. 8). If a prince takes care in his use of cruelty, and doesnt act out of pleasure, then he can avoid being hated. Also, it isnt too difficult to imagine the possibility that if a prince is fair and, in spite of his methods, brings peace and fortune to his people, he could become loved. Now that I have established the parameters of fear and love for a prince in Machiavellis eyes, I can dig a little deeper into those ruthless acts I referred to above. My second subject is a princes ambition and how Niccolo advises for acts of conquest. Machiavelli doesnt set any requirements for capturing new states, but he said it is only natural for a prince to want to. In Michael Antons article, Of Conquest, he says, This natural and ordinary desire must, however, be subjected to the limits of prudence (pg. 2) Because conquering another republic or princedom is a cruel act in the eyes of the conquered, a prince must literally pick his battles. Acting on desire alone, without thought to the probability of trying and failing, or to the betterment of the existing princedom, can have a terrible result, and the prince must weigh these odds before acting. Machiavelli warns against absolute likelihood of offending the new subjects from a fresh acquisition. His words are, . . . you may find that you have enemies in all

those whom you have injured in seizing the Princedom. . . (pg. 2) He also warns of the danger of upsetting existing subjects as well, saying, . . . since you can neither reward them as they expect, nor yet, being under obligations to them, use violent remedies against them (pg. 2). All of these dangers must be factored into the decision to conquer before the act is made. I must note the terminology Machiavelli uses on this subject. He rarely uses the word conquer, instead referring to it as acquire. This and other vocabulary choices show that he is attempting to remove the disgraceful connotation for conquest. If he were alive and interviewed today, I believe he would argue that acts of conquest are common place and is part of human nature, and that it needs to be accepted when done appropriately. Michael Anton points out an interesting anecdote, writing, Acquire or a variant appears 52 times in The Prince, whereas conquer and the related words win or victory appear only 35 times (Anton, pg. 2). What is most interesting is that Machiavelli is trying to make these dark deeds appear brighter and acceptable to the reader, but at the same time, warns against them so much as to discourage the behavior. I hate it when I have homework assigned to me, but I cant blame my professor for assigning it, especially if he gives advice on how to complete it properly. Its the way the education system is built. Just like Ralph, who is required by his game to wreck things, cant be hated just for doing his job. Finally, I wish to discuss Machiavellis stance on Fortune. In his eyes, fortune is at once a splendid thing and a vicious one. Like God, it has the power to give and take away. But he doesnt give it a religious connotation, he likens it to a woman. He says, Fortune is the mistress of one half our actions, and yet leaves the control of the other half, or a little less, to ourselves (pg. 66). I can suddenly imagine Machiavelli being banished from Florence as Frank Sinatra

sings of Lady Luck having a very un-lady-like way of running out. But Niccolo would disagree with me, if he somehow was around 450 years later to know the song. He argues that fortune isnt completely uncontrollable. After likening fortune to a flood, he states, . . . in seasons of fair weather, men cannot, by constructing weirs and moles, take such precautions as will cause them when again in flood to pass off by some artificial channel (pg. 66). How can he say an uncontrollable river can be controlled? Only partially. Timo Airaksinen has a great understanding of this. In his article he states, What he actually means is that The Prince controls himself, so that he minimizes the threat of bad luck. The embankments and dykes are his own mental constructions which help him to stay on the right track (Donskis pg. 12). Once again, it falls to the prince to be wise, prudent, and to always be prepared. I refuse to agree with our modern adjective of Machiavellian. Even though there is a lack of ethical awareness in the text, Niccolo is merely advising the reader to be prepared and giving instructions on how to avoid losing a princedom, whether it be inherited or newly acquired. The lesson Ralph learns is how to play the part of the villain in a peaceful way. He changes the way he appears to his subjects by making heroic acts as well as the required dastardly ones. The only advice of Machiavellis he doesnt need, because of his inherent ability to smash things, is how to beat Lady Fortune into submission and bending her to his will. His is a little nave and Im afraid he would take it the wrong way,

Works Cited

Airaksinen, Timo. Against All the Odds: Machiavelli on Fortune in Politics. Niccolo Machiavelli: History, Power, and Virtue. Leonidas Donskis. New York: Rodopi, 2011. Print. Anton, Michael. Of Conquest: An Interpretation of Chapters 3-5 of Machiavellis Prince. Perspectives on Political Science. Vol. 38 Issue 1. 2009. Print. Barnett, Vincent. Niccolo Machiavelli the Cunning Critic of Political Reason. History Review. 2006. Print Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1992. Print.