Fear has always been the social lever that made it possible to control people and prevent suicides and the most terrible crimes. As Vonnegut pointed out, “The deepest sort of respect is the uncontrollable fear.” As we fear, we think, and as the fear disappears, we stop thinking about the consequences. And some people understand it well and make good use of it…
According to Machiavelli, fear is something that underlies the modern philosophy that he is speaking about. This is the philosophy of being a prince, of belonging to royalty.
Of course, you might ask me what kind of a prince would the one who fears make. The royal decency and honor should not allow a royal person to have any fears or even to get frightened. This is the policy of the sword and stone-cold face, and thy hands shall not tremble as you go through the ordeal.
However, the idea of a man who can eat the monsters of his own fancy has been long gone. It has been proved by modern psychologists that if a person has no fear, he is either crazy or already dead. No third solution can be possible.
Still it is of a great interest to see the way the great philosophers of the past dwelled upon this certainly scientific problem.
As Machiavelli points out, fear is an integral part of the policy of a prince, in case it bites not his royal majesty, but the people of the state.
He explains it in very plain words. Such is the human psychology that they can obey in two cases. The first is when they respect the person who gives them commands. The second case is the one when they are afraid of the person in charge.
In both cases, the crowd will obey. But the very thing is that the former situation is much less certain than the latter. The fear is something that glues the crowd as long as the reason for it exists. Meanwhile, the respect, which is harder to control, once gone, never returns. And since that certainly means a farewell to the reign of the one who was feared, the conclusion is undeniable. The fear is something that glues society together.
Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he doesn’t win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. (Machiavelli 90)
This is rather a cynical viewpoint, which is, actually, the most attractive feature of Machiavelli’s policy. I mean that speaking very cynic things and expressing the ideas that even modern politics could blush about, he still spoke sincerely and with the due care of the monarchy and the state. It was all the government business that he was into.
That is what we have on the one hand. Meanwhile, on the other, there is the man whose influence on world politics was just as mighty and powerful, and whose ideas were put to practice by several governments. Welcome, Thomas Hobbes, the politician that could read people’s minds just as easily as the evening paper!
Hobbes addresses the people with quite a different message. His policy lacks the sentimental Renaissance vignettes that Machiavelli is so good to draw at. Thomas Hobbes speaks openly and at times even rudely, cutting the people’s weak points like a professional surgeon.
Hobbes’ idea of fear as a part of politics underlies the very manner of ruling a state. This manner can be called totalitarian, but we shall not hurry with loud words.
According to Hobbes, the thing that can control the human mass is a fear of punishment. At this point he is quite close to the standard and, I would even say, banal, comparing the king, or the emperor, or whoever, to a father of all the citizens of the country. Like a father can punish a child for misbehaving, the monarch punishes the citizen of his state. this is how he puts this idea, making a link between the fear and the commonwealth:
THE final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants…. (Hobbes 62)
Thus, Hobbes literally takes liberty as a dangerous factor that prevents the had of the state from keeping things in order. That is rather unexpected compared to Machiavelli’s opinion. However, again, the impact of the century and its morals must be taken into account, and the confusion must be resulting from the fact that Machiavelli was the founder of the contemporary political views and that he outran the time he was living in.
Back to Hobbes, it would be a mistake to consider him a totalitarian monster. It was just that he expressed the ideas that were the only possible way out for his country at his epoch. When the state is crushing down, Utopia is of no use.
Taking a closer look at both theories, I would like to say that each of them can prove right in due time and a certain state. Of course, Machiavelli is much more humane and has a more contemporary viewpoint, but there are the states which need a certain time to acknowledge their rights and get used to them.
It has also occurred to me that different layers of society might demand different approaches. What works right for the intelligence, proves wrong with the lower class. and, vice versa, if you are wanted to succeed in governing the upper class, you have to learn certain rules and try to achieve some compromise.
However, Hobbes realizes that it is far not that simple with the theory of fear that he exercises, and he adds that when uncontrolled, fear can become a weapon against the monarch himself:
Of all passions, that which inclineth men least to break the laws is fear. Nay, expressing some generous natures, it is the only thing (when there is appearance of profit or pleasure by breaking the laws) that makes men keep them. And yet in many cases a crime may be committed through fear. (Hobbes 204)
I want to drive your attention to the fact that Hobbes not only considers fear as the weapon for total control, as Machiavelli does but also explains that this could be the reason for people to act in a particular way. In other words, in contrast to Machiavelli, who shares the idea of the monarch to control people’s minds and emotions completely and being able to order them what to fear and what not to, Hobbs emphasizes that people can have fears of their own, which might drag certain actions of these people. A dangerous idea as it is, it questions the very power of the monarch. However, we must admit that it has a lot more common sense than the idealistic concepts of Machiavelli, who was considering the ideal people and the ideal monarch.
The key idea of the fear theory is not to go too far. Otherwise, this might lead to the consequences scarier than Worlds War I and II altogether.
However, that is as far it goes for both authors, If dealing with the ideas of each one, in particular, I would say that there are a few remarks I would like to voice now.
Perhaps, I shall start with Machiavelli.
I totally agree with the great maestro concerning the fear of the masses and that it can be a weapon to rule the state. Yet I think that his addressing, with a heavy load of a mentoring tone that kills any wish to improve one’s skills of a future conqueror, is of lesser influence. It is very soft and parental, and it does not make the impact of the king speaking to his citizens. Machiavelli’s philosophy is far too soft for the XVI century.
His fear theory is the theory of harmony and understanding, and he is speaking about the place where every single person would obey the laws for they contribute to the overall commonwealth and prosperity, and about the laws that would not rip people off their possession and be as fair and transparent as laws can be, serving the justice and the state. This is impossible even nowadays, and, of course, it was twice as impossible 500 years ago.
But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are distributed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping people satisfied with him, which is most necessary for him to accomplish… (Machiavelli 99)
I think you will agree that those days it sounded more than impossible, – it sounded ridiculous. A monarch cannot be just to everyone, and he always has to choose between the less of two evils.
In terms of Hobbes’ ideas of the perfect reign and the fear as the cornerstone for the control over the country and the people, I would say that he exaggerates too much. It is a good idea to make people understand that there are actions that may result in being punished and imprisoned, but using the fear of losing freedom or life to make people act the way the monarch wants is more than a half-baked idea, at least for the modern society. Someday the people will revolt, and the mutiny can result in worse than the budget money stolen or several cities burnt down. That may result in losing authority. When such a thing happens, nothing else can be done. This is the end of the monarch’s reign.
Still, they both have expressed the ideas that even modern politics still needs and makes good use of. they have built a fundament for the future political science to develop and suggest new ideas and new means of ruling a country. As Hobbes said,
“Good success is power; because it makes the reputation of wisdom or good fortune, which makes man either fear him or rely on him (58).”
And maybe someday as the political sciences develop so great that people will have no urge in being controlled to make the good citizen and prevent crimes, the promised commonwealth will glow upon the countries of the entire world, the peace, and justice to be the common principles of life.
… Or, at least, we can still dream of this day to come.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. New York, NY: Forgotten Books, 1950. Print.
Machiavelli, Nicola. The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriott. New York, NY: Plainn Label Books, 1952. Print.