Negotiating Pedagogical Authority System

Negotiating Pedagogical Authority System


Question:

Discuss about the Negotiating Pedagogical Authority System.

Answer:

Introduction:

Machiavelli is known for writing “The Prince” which is based on politics. The writing style and the arguments used by Machiavelli are considered innovative. Experts consider “The Prince” as the foundation of political philosophy. Machiavelli’s work throws light on the immoral deeds done by people for political gains (Gary Remer, 2008). He mentions that the princes are willing to adopt immoral ways for survival and honour. Machiavelli has used the word “state” in the introductory part of “The Prince” which generally means status. With due course of time, this word acquired a new meaning (Cro, 2010). According to modern interpretation, this word refers to supreme powers in the field of politics. Machiavelli credits this work to his knowledge and real-life experiences. The political behaviour described in “The Prince” is considered to be very disturbing (Cro, 2010). “The Prince” is considered as a masterpiece for people studying politics. The central idea is that the rulers sometimes have to indulge in unjustifiable actions in order to preserve their rule (Cro, 2010). “The Prince” is considered as a daring piece of work as it was completely different from the Renaissance thinking.

Machiavelli Methods:

“The Prince” throws light on the patriotic side of Machiavelli. He has clearly expressed his love for his country. He wanted his state to be free from corruption. Through his work, Machiavelli wanted to highlight the cause of his state’s downfall. He wanted to suggest remedies for making his state internally stable. He had a strong opinion that the state should be led by a ruler who values courage and honour (Gary Remer, 2008). He also emphasized that in order to improve the condition of the state, the ruler should be able to introduce drastic reforms that may be considered as ruthless. Machiavelli has bravely expressed his views about human nature. Men have been called scoundrels in order to depict human nature. He has called most human beings as fickle-minded, greedy, fake and ungrateful. He has not shied away from stating that leaders who follow the teachings of Christ cannot survive in this world. He insists that reality is very different from the ideal views about life (Gary Remer, 2008). He mentions that any ruler who does not adapt to the existing situation will be doomed. Taking a realistic view about life, Machiavelli mentions that it is nearly impossible for a good leader/ ruler to survive. On the basis of his experience and knowledge, he presents an argument that a successful ruler cannot always practice virtues. For building a strong state, it is important for the leaders to conduct themselves in an effective manner that may be against faith, mercy, and religion (Quaglioni, 2014). Machiavelli insists that the leaders should follow ethics and code of conduct as long as possible. A leader should adopt vices if it proves to be beneficial for the state. But he should not be restricted to follow a certain path as this will make him incompetent. An effective leader is one who has the ability to challenge status-quo.    


Referring to the traditional rhetoric styles, Machiavelli had clarified that he has not used bombastic language while writing “The Prince”. He insisted that did not use superfluous expressions in order to impress his readers. But still, the readers come across some intelligently used figures of speech. A fox and lion are mentioned for drawing a comparison between shrewdness and force. On the basis of Machiavelli’s work, several commentators consider him an advocate of realism. While referring to the immoral practices, Machiavelli has used strong adjectives to differentiate between the animals and human. He states that those who follow laws are men whereas those who use force are beasts (Willcocks, 2011). He clearly mentions that the foremost political goal should be to take charge of one’s future but in an ethical manner. He assumed that wisdom is an integral part of good politics. Through “The Prince”, Machiavelli expressed himself far more than his contemporaries (Willcocks, 2011). He was in favour of risk-taking abilities. He associated ambition with honour-seeing rulers. He did not have a traditional approach towards politics. He expressed that princes aim for innovative apart from stability during their reign. Radical reforms can help a prince in gaining honour (Corbett, 2013). Machiavelli has a strong opinion about how the rulers should take care of their wealth. He has made a shocking revelation that rulers were successful in safeguarding their wealth by creating a new religion or state. He has used words like “fortune” and “prowess” to highlight the factors that are responsible for the success/ failure of the ruler. Fortune refers to luck whereas prowess refers to capabilities (Wright, 2011). Machiavelli argues that luck controls fifty percent of the human actions whereas the capabilities control the remaining fifty percent. He justifies that a leader is capable of shaping his destiny through his abilities but he can never have absolute control over future events (Cro, 2010). He also justifies how “fear” helps a prince in safeguarding his position. Injustice has been personified in “The Prince”. He states that a ruler will never lose his hold if people fear punishment for their deeds. Many readers have condemned Machiavelli by calling him an atheist (Cro, 2010).

Conclusion:

The content of “The Prince” has always been regarded as controversial. Some authors have agreed with his views while some have criticized them. Several literary experts have agreed that a leader should be considerate about his reputation even if it requires shrewdness (Cro, 2010). But at the same time, they are in favour of economic growth rather than the consequences of a war. Machiavelli presents an argument that strong military forces are associated with sound laws. He insists that states are built on the basis of successful wars (Corbett, 2013). But, wars do not define the successful development of a state. Machiavelli describes the war in an elaborate manner. He argues that a war is much more than the presence of military forces. A war is fought on the basis of geographical analysis and diplomatic strategies. Machiavelli offers advice to potential rulers. “The Prince” can be best described as a political satire written with the purpose of criticizing the tyrannical rule. Machiavelli wanted to reflect the oppressive rule prevalent in his country and wanted to promote liberty (Cro, 2010). “The Prince” tries to emphasize the importance of democracy and free republic.

References

Corbett, S. (2013). Negotiating Pedagogical Authority: The Rhetoric of Writing Center Tutoring Styles and Methods. Rhetoric Review, 32(1), pp.81-98.
Cro, S. (2010). The Contrasting Political Philosophies of More and Machiavelli. Moreana, 47 (Number 181-(3-4), pp.205-218.
Gary Remer, (2008). Rhetoric as a Balancing of Ends: Cicero and Machiavelli. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42(1), pp.1-28.
Quaglioni, D. (2014). Machiavelli, the Prince and the Idea of Justice. Italian Culture, 32(2), pp.110-121.
Willcocks, L. (2011). Machiavelli, management and outsourcing: still on the learning curve. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 4(1), pp.5-12.
Wright, J. (2011). Machiavelli in the British Isles: Two Early Modern Translations of The Prince. By Alessandra Petrina. The Heythrop Journal, 52(3), pp.496-496.

Comments