Thoreau and Machiavelli are men of two very different times, places, and systems of government. Thoreau is a member of a union controlled by a democratic government machine, whereas Machiavelli is the citizen of an empire with a singular royal ruler calling the shots. Their philosophies about power and the government subsequently reflect this. While Machiavelli explores the careful balancing act that makes a successful prince, Thoreau explores the citizen's quest for justice, and how it may be achieved in a governmental machine. Thoreau takes the view that a person must put their whole being into whatever actions they take in order to be just and true, whereas Machiavelli preaches subterfuge as a leadership tactic- the promotion of a good self image, while privately acting on less appealing qualities.
We can see from Machiavelli's language that he admires a prince/authority figure that can charm their citizens but keep their country in line with an iron fist. Machiavelli promotes his version of this ideal nation, where the citizens obey the idealized version of their prince while unconsciously falling compliant to his less noble designs. Thoreau champions the complete opposite, putting the power in the hands of the individual and asking them to see past the trickery of the machine of government (or a prince) and question whether the system is just. Machiavelli preaches compliance and strong leaders as a solution to government, whereas Thoreau promotes revolution and civil disobedience as the way to counterbalance the machine of government -which may not be exercising power justly- hopefully changing it for the better, or eliminating it's necessity completely.
No comments:
Post a Comment