The first issue I’d like to revisit is whether or not interactions between states have changed fundamentally since Machiavelli’s time. After our class discussion, I still stand by my initial assertion that the way states interact has changed significantly, and that this change is largely due to different factors that have since become more important.
Regarding Machiavelli’s position on the interaction between states, I pointed out that much of Machiavelli’s focus was on land. During his life, land was more important, as in an agrarian society land itself would provide the basis of wealth. Land was also a symbol of power; expanding the territory of a state would increase its stature among the other players. In the postmodern context, land can still have intrinsic value (i.e. oil in Iraq), but what has changed is the way in which states go about securing their own interests. Today, states do not attempt to conquer each other. If there is a commodity existing in one state, others will attempt to seize it through economic means. Just as territory was a primary concern during Machiavelli’s day, so the economy is in ours.
My second point concerns Machiavelli’s views on alliances. Embodying the idea of the realist, Machiavelli states that alliances should not be depended on, as a state should trust only its own abilities. He argues that a state dependent on its allies will also be subordinate to them. In this point Machiavelli’s case has been supported by certain historical examples, but the overall conception of an alliance is, I believe, no longer valid. Relating back to the idea that economics is the determining factor in a state’s interest, alliances are formed on the basis that the allied parties have one or multiple common interests. In our postmodern era, these interests are directly linked to economic policy. But in a broader perspective, allies also share values, which strengthens the partnership beyond the fiscal aspect, thereby weakening Machiavelli’s claim that a nation would become subject to its more powerful ally.
My argument is not that Machiavelli’s philosophy is obsolete; there are numerous practical applications of the theories that he addresses. But I do believe that there are now other factors in the equation. Though many of the same aspects of society existed then than do now, those factors have changed their relative significance to the happenings of international politics. I felt that in our class discussion we collectively expressed a general recognition that this was and is the case.
2 comments:
In regards to Machiavelli's concept of an alliance being no longer valid:
He says: "A prince ought never to make common cause with one more powerful than himself to injure another, unless necessity forces him to it, as before said; for if he wins you rest in his power, and princes must avoid as much as possible being under the will and pleasure of others."
It's less that he is saying all alliances are bad, but that you should be careful who you ally with and when. That the whole "my enemy's enemy is my friend" way of thinking is ultimately dangerous.
I think on the whole alliance issue, Jasmine is correct. Alliances are pretty much promises, and promises to Machiavelli are meant to be broken. Now obviously you have to be careful to not break to many promises, so you should be very careful with whom you ally with.
Post a Comment