Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau "Fear and Love"

In Machiavelli's Prince it is argued that it is better to be feared rather than to be loved. The concepts of fear and love are as important in modern times as to the Medici. We see this with the Presidency of George W. Bush and his approval ratings. It is easy to see that he is not loved. His effectiveness is also questioned because for many Americans, almost half, they have some level of hatred for him. This is not fear, but rather the worst situation for a ruler in Machiavelli's description. Through the eyes of Machiavelli's The Prince, and the philosophers and theorists Rousseau and Hobbes we can see the argument of whether it is better to be loved or feared.

To Machiavelli it is impossible to rule without some sort of cruelty or force. He describes this as especially important for the new ruler. The new ruler must protect himself by eradicating the state of potential dangers to his power and the state's. Through this power play to protect the ruler's own interests things will be done that will dramatically effect, if found out about, the opinion of their subjects within their rule. For many they may see this as a necessary but cruel act directed at protection of their community and state. Many other subjects would look upon this situation with fear. This is because they do not want the power of the Prince to be so great that perhaps the Prince could do the same to anyone he felt inclined to punish. For this reason we see that individuals will fear a ruler. In odd cases this kind of cruelty and force will produce love, although the love of these individuals is not wanted or idealized. The most common feeling for rulers, and the most important to avoid is the feeling of hatred.

Machiavelli says on his chapter concerning cruelty and clemency that hatred arises when the ruler or prince takes claim or damages the property of its citizens. This includes the citizen's or subject's women. To Machiavelli it is easier to justify the death of individuals within your rule than the taking of property. For these wrongs the people will not forgive or forget. Also Machiavelli notes that once the robbery of property is started, it is very difficult to stop. For this reason it is vital that rulers avoid at all costs being hated. Now it is not reasonable to be only feared or loved by citizens and subjects, but it is reasonable that not all of your citizens hate you. The feelings of hate by the general population can often be avoided by rulers.

Fear is the most constant feeling that citizens can have for a ruler. To Machiavelli it is with you, once created, through the good and the bad times. Love on the other hand is completely disposed to the feelings and endeavors of the people. Subjects can love you one day for feeding them and dislike or hate you the next. Love is a conditional feeling that is based upon many factors. For subjects to love a ruler it is completely dependent on the feelings of the citizens towards the ruler's actions, words, and even agents. The ruler's magistrates and representatives even play a vital role in creating the feelings that the citizens have towards the prince. For this reason love is a difficult feeling to create among the population. It is present during times of quick victories in both political and military warfare, acts of courage, a rise in nationalism, and the providing of goods to the general public. These moments may lead to love from the people. But Machiavelli describes these feelings as fleeting.

Fear then, is the most desirable attribute that the people can possess towards their ruler. Fear allows them to justify actions that seem out of place by the ruler. It also encourages subordination and a willingness to fulfill the duties of a subject to the state. Fear is also necessary for a ruler to keep the military united and avoid dissensions. If the prince cannot be cruel enough that the military commanders and soldiers fear him, they will not march into battle for him. Also their lack of fear and possible insubordination might lead to a military coup.

With Machiavelli's view of fear being more important than being loved, we can then ask ourselves the question of whether he is right. We can also ask ourselves; according to what we know of other philosophers, would they agree? In the study of Thomas Hobbes we learn quickly that he would agree with Nicolo Machiavelli. For Hobbes, man is a selfish being that is ruled by his own fears and desires as if they were the only inputs to man's physical machine. Hobbes, similar to Machiavelli, sees the world and man through the lenses of early realism. This realism leads them to view the world in such a manner of man's imperfections and natural dilemmas.

In the Leviathan, chapter ten, on power and worth Hobbes explains that both love, if you can attain it, and fear are power because they enforce the subject's need of your assistance and support. Fear also shows the need for your protection. Man, with this fear, avoids as much as possible a contentious society but rather would give up their rights through covenant to one another. The fear of a violent death leads society towards a commodious form of living.

For Hobbes this happens through the formation of an absolute sovereign. The sovereign, acting with ultimate power, determines what is good and evil for his subjects. He gains power through the harnessing of the fears and desires of the people. So for Thomas Hobbes, the control of man by fear is the only natural way to lead. He would completely agree that in man's nature of all-against-all love does not persist, only fear. Thus for Hobbes, fear is more important than being loved.

Another modern philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French speaking Swiss philosopher gives us another understanding of Machiavelli's views on the importance of the rulers need for fear or love. Rousseau in modern philosophy evaluates man and government through the lenses of liberalism. For Rousseau fear is not a major player in the role of the government and the ruler. His liberal viewpoint allows him to see government rather as a body that's purpose is to fulfill the needs of the people. In Rousseau's Social Contract he explains that the government's purpose as in institution is to bring harmony to its people and unite the general will. It is not the government's role to make the nation, but rather the people that do so. This is done through the people's ability to directly influence government. Under Rousseau's theories the government is meant to be responsive and aligned with the will of the people through the process of the general will of the people. General will is the majority opinion of the people found through a direct assembly by all of the state's people. This harmony comes because ideally to Rousseau, the state is small in both population and geography. It is also very homogenous allowing for a unification of desires and wills. For this reason Rousseau could believe ideally that he would not place great emphasis or importance on either fear or love as most important for the ruler of this state. If such a feeling must be chosen in the search for harmony among the people, Rousseau would most likely then choose the importance of love, or at least a general acceptance of the rulers by the people. This can occur because the people give the executives or government the power to act as agents for the people. The people make and amend the laws and have the ability to change the government institution or its agents. Thus fear is not necessary.

After an evaluation of the three philosopher's views on fear and love as discussed by Machiavelli; I would find myself aligning more with the liberal view of Rousseau, rather than the realist approach of Machiavelli and Hobbes. I do not agree with all of Rousseau's theories on human nature and the government's rule, but only on the opinion of fear and love. As America's Constitution declares, "We the People", I believe that it is our power that lends the rulers their authority. For this reason we should not fear them, or necessarily love them. We do, as the general will, need to understand our role in giving this authority to the rulers and respect them for their actions as such agents. We as the people of the nation choose our representatives, which Rousseau would disagree with, so that we might express our general will in the formation and continuation of our government. It is our authority that leads this state. Through this view of authority and rule one does not need the cruel chains of fear to subject a nation. It is the people themselves that will choose their rulers and under their social contract will equally give up their rights for the harmony of all. All we need is rather to give our will in the general assemblies through a less direct form of voting and participating in government. Through my contract with the American people I need not fear most importantly the rulers for they are of my own choosing. Nor do I need to love them, because they can be replaced.

The philosophers look through many lenses upon the questions of government and the necessities to rule. For each it is slightly different. Machiavelli and Hobbes while similar have their differences. Likewise the very way that Rousseau looks at government alters the questions and relevancy of Machiavelli's statement. Many opinions can be concluded about whether Hobbes or Rousseau would agree with Machiavelli, but under my evaluations of their theories I have concluded such. That Hobbes would agree with Machiavelli based upon their similar view of humanity and that Rousseau might question the very relevance of the importance in either.