Week 3 Discussion Questions

SEMINAR LEADER QUESTIONS -- WEEK 3

1.     In “Discourses,” on page 67, Machiavelli discusses the dependence of society on religion “so the rulers of a republic or of a kingdom should uphold the basic principles of the religion to which they are committed. If they do this it will be easy for them to keep their state religious and, as a consequence, law-abiding and united”. How relevant do you think Machiavelli would find dependence on religion in today’s ideal state? Can you relate these guidelines to modern issues, such as the actions of the Pope or other large political figures?

2.     On page 74, Machiavelli states, "Thinking about how these things work, I reached the conclusion that the world is always in the same overall condition. There has always been in it as much good as bad, but both the good and the bad are redistributed from territory to territory." How do you think Machiavelli defines good and bad? Can you find evidence of these definitions in the text? Do you agree with this statement, and if so, do you see evidence of this concept in today's world?

3.     On page 78, Machiavelli states, "...for cities become great by pursuing, not the interest of private individuals, but the interests of the community as a whole. And there is no doubt the public interest is never a guiding principle except in republics... But the opposite occurs when a city is under the rule of one man, for usually what serves his interest hurts the city, and what would benefit the city is contrary to his interest."Could it be argued that Machiavelli undermines his arguments in “The Prince” of self-serving interests by pointing out the benefits of ruling with the republic’s interests as priority? If he believes a republic is a better establishment for a nation, do you believe that Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was possibly written with false intentions?

4.     Fortune seems to be an important topic for Machiavelli. As we discussed earlier in class, Machiavelli wrote in “The Prince” that, “Fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than to those who proceed in a calculating fashion" (pg. 50). In “Discourses” he then states, "Men can help fortune along, but they cannot resist it; they can swim with the tide, but they cannot make headway against it. Of course, they should never give up, for they can never know what fortune has in mind" (pg. 82). Is Machiavelli promoting a consistent concept of fortune through these two quotes, or does it seem as though he believes princes and other people are treated differently by fortune? Are there other examples? Does having a consistent or inconsistent opinion on this subject in both the texts imply anything significant?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1.   Why does Machiavelli think that constant “refounding” is important?

2. According to Margaret Kohn, what is the populist reading of Machiavelli? p. 102. How does it differ from the republican reading? What do you think Kohn means when she says that:

"the rule of law itself requires the extralegal as a kind of supplement...The extralegal is a substitute for the legal in the sense that it asserts the legitimacy or collective power outside of the state....At the same time, however, it is an addition that supports and facilitates the operation of the law. Because aggrieved citizens can express the intensity of their discontent through protest and non-compliance, thereby incorporating the people's desires into the law. In stark contrast to the sovereigntist approach, the extralegal is not defined as private or unjust. From the populist perspective, this public is an important way of ensuring a free life." p. 103?

3. In her conclusion, Kohn suggests a lesson that can be derived from her interpretation of the Occupy Wall Street movement. What is this lesson?

4. How does Machiavelli's support for political demonstration and debate relate to present citizens in the United States that participated in the Occupy movement?What does it say about those who did not participate? For those who are not participating, do they act as hindrances to a true and just state? (From Shila's post)