Envy and Equality

“Men are by nature envious,” is a phrase that one might expect at the beginning of Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, a book that describes how to rule principalities with success (if not glory). However, it is not in “The Prince” that he begins with that devilishly blatant statement, but his other most famous compilation, the “Discourses”, a book that describes republics and how one might go about creating one. Why is it then that Machiavelli chooses to begin a work as liberating as this with such dismal words. “Men are by nature envious.” Gee, thanks Machiavelli, really getting me pumped up to start a republic; I’m going to have a bunch of envious men to keep in check. Whoopee!

            Upon reading the text though, one comes to understand perhaps why he began in such a way. For if he did not just come out in beginning and say it so straightforwardly like he did, than it would not be evident to the reader that envy is a key factor to take into consideration when governing a republic, even to this day. Later on in the book Machiavelli describes the political cycle of passing “…from monarchy, to aristocracy, to democracy…” (59). A huge reason why these power shifts occur is that men are envious, and one man or group of men are envious enough to want to come together and overthrow the current leader. Not to say that oppression and other factors do not play into it as well, but it is the envy of the nobility’s power, and the control they had as a result of it, coupled with those other factors that roused the populace of Rome to rise up against them and seize a hunk of the power for themselves. Not only did Machiavelli make clear that these power struggles happen, but that they can be beneficial in a society possessive of a strong constitution. In responding to criticism of the Roman republic he tells of these benefits at length:

           

“One cannot judge these conflicts as harmful, or the republic as divided, when over such a long period of time the differences between [the nobility and the populace] led to no more than eight or ten citizens’ being sent into exile, to a tiny number’s being murdered, and indeed to only a few’s being fined. Nor can there be any good grounds for calling a republic disorderly when it contains so many examples of individual excellence, for good individuals cannot exist without good education, and good education cannot exist without good laws, and good laws were the result of those very conflicts many people unthinkingly criticize” (60).

            Although, Rome was only one example; Machiavelli, in “Discourses”, also tells of how envy can lead to detriments in a society, especially if the protection of liberty is to be left to the populace. In some cases,

“…if you put the populace in charge of protecting liberty, it is reasonable to believe that they will do a better job, and since they cannot hope to monopolize power themselves, they will ensure nobody else does” (61).

            However in other cases, such as those of the Spartans and Venetians, it is best to leave the protection of liberty to the nobility because,

“…you satisfy some of the nobility’s aspirations, and because they have a greater role in the state as a result of having this power in their hands, they are more likely to be content. In the second, you take away a measure of authority from the populace, who are restless and insatiable. It is the populace who are responsible for innumerable conflicts and clashes in a republic” (61).

            Machiavelli certainly had a thorough understanding of both society’s inner workings and the behaviors of individuals and the social class they belong to; an understanding that many in the modern world share. It makes one question whether or not they are envious, and if so why? Reading this as a member of the populace 500 years after it was written, I question whether we are more, less or the same as the populace 500 years ago in Italy; the one Machiavelli was familiar with. Are we as restless and insatiable? Are we more? Our congress has reached the highest degree of ineffectiveness in the history of its existence, but is it the result of conflict with the populace or something else? Could it perhaps be certain nobility that are at the root of the problem? And perhaps the most difficult question of all, is this current conflict in society beneficial? And if so, how will it benefit us?

            In the “Discourses”, Machiavelli also speaks of “gentlemen.” The gentlemen he speaks of are not the polite, do-gooding gentlemen our current society is most familiar with, but a different type who are less considerate of others and, “…live in luxury without working” (73). Although the term gentleman, seen through the eyes of Machiavelli, was applied to a fairly specific type of man, in our current society, where the phrase “1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth” is spoken on a daily basis, there are many people, both men and women, whom Machiavelli would categorize as “gentlemen”. These people are thought by many to not have a good influence on society, because they live lavishly and do not have to work a week out of the year in order to get what ever it is they desire. They have maids and butlers, multiple estates, private jets, the finest clothing and jewelry. And they promote the lifestyle day in, day out. They most certainly fit the description of “gentlemen”. What Machiavelli mainly has to say of these people is that they are the corruptors of society, and he draws, “…the following conclusion: Anyone who wants to set up a republic in a place where there is a fair number of gentlemen can only do it if he begins by killing them all” (73). A brutal conclusion, but most likely suited to the times and environment he was living in. So how might we go about solving a similar problem in modern times?

            I myself would not be able to kill a bunch of people, regardless of any status they possess. I do not have it in me to commit such an atrocity. But seriously, the economic elite has amassed the majority of authority in the U.S., and many of them do not appear gleeful at the idea of sharing it with those who have not had the same opportunities as them; at the idea of creating social equality. How can we lead them to compassion when they, "are totally hostile to a civilized way of life"?