This week of SIS 105 marked the completion of a full month of college classes, and I alternatively feel as if I’ve been here for a long time, but also no time at all. For class we read Machiavelli's The Prince, a book which I had some background knowledge of but had never really delved into deeply. I found our class discussion on Friday to be especially interesting as it centered on Machiavelli’s central argument that “the greater good” is most important above all else.
I think everyone could easily agree that we should always strive to help the most people possible in the country become the best possible etc. etc., but the question remains of how we define who “the greater good” is. In the past in Western society, “the greater good” was thought of as white property-holding men, justifying such things as slavery and preventing women from voting. Given this, it is imperative that we think critically about how we define the greater good, who is included, whose interests are prioritized, and why; specifically how various aspects of privilege (ie race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.) shape those definitions. Or conversely, who are we most willing to sacrifice for “the greater good”? Furthermore, is “greater good” defined by power or population? An example used in class was that the Three Gorges Dam in China was a justified decision because 1.5 million displaced people pales in comparison to the billion or so in China. This would imply that population is most important in determining “greater good”. However, it was also suggested in our discussion and in The Prince that “the greater good” is synonymous with keeping the currently ruling government in power. Again, how do various privileges intersect to create and define the ruling class that we want to keep in power? I also wondered, what would Machiavelli say about peasant revolutions? These overthrow the previous systems of power, but potentially help “the greater good”; in these cases which side would Machiavelli approve of? This idea of sacrifice for the greater good is an especially important topic for me because my life is itself a direct product of China’s infamous One Child Policy. By the Chinese government’s estimate, this policy prevented some 450 million births and allowed for better distribution of resources, continued job opportunities, and continued rapid economic growth. If we think of this from a purely Machiavellian, “logical” standpoint, having the One Child Policy was justified. However the human cost included millions of forced abortions, a highly imbalanced gender ratio (both at birth and otherwise), and between 50 and 90 million “missing women” in China-- baby girls that were sex-selectively aborted and simply never born, baby girls who became victims of infanticide, baby girls whose births were never reported and who have to live their entire lives without access to any government resources, and baby girls like me who were abandoned in market places and in front of orphanages. All of us were considered collateral, necessary sacrifices for the greater good of the country, yet we had no say in these policies because we have no ruling power. How can our suffering be quantified, and who will take responsibility? Public policy and politics are inherently about people, and the policies that we put in place directly affect the lives of everyone in both big and small ways. To unilaterally ignore the humanistic side of policy in favor of a nebulous “greater good” puts us into an extremely dangerous position of creating policy without critical and holistic thinking.
0 Comments
Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him?
One of the main concepts expressed in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the idea of virtù, which Machiavelli takes to mean possessing “those qualities that lead to success” (505) in any given situation. Acts of virtù may not at face value appear to be kind, but they ensure in the long run that the country and its people will maintain order and prosperity in the long run, and that stability for Machiavelli is virtuous. The initial quote in this blog is preceded Machiavelli’s assertion that:
If one were to follow all rules, guidelines, and precedents to a T, this would inevitably lead to failure at some point or another, something that Machiavelli absolutely cannot stand. Instead, Machiavelli would argue that disregarding rules, even his own, would be the best if they would lead to success. This seems like circular logic, and perhaps that is the magic of Machiavelli in that even when you disagree with him you cannot escape his same train of thought. For myself, I agree with Machiavelli’s sentiment philosophically, however I don’t think that it can be unilaterally applied today. I too believe that success for a country and its citizens is of utmost importance, however who defines what success is? Who can say what sacrifices are “worth it” for success or not? In our present-day democracy, is order still the measure of success? How do values like personal freedom factor into ideas of success? I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and we no longer live in the monarchal “one-party system” of Machiavelli’s Italy. Now in the US we have a large multi-party system that represents the interests of many different factions and schools of thought, and there is no longer a single virtuous man to “seize his chances and will recognize what needs to be done” (505). Then, looking at the practical realities of today, I would argue that is best not to follow Machiavelli's rules. *"Page numbers" are Kindle locations **Bullet point quote is due to Weebly's inability to indent paragraphs |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|