Machiavelli once described Moses as an astute person who, in the quest to consolidate his power, found in the idea of an absolute, singular God the means to wield control over the israelites under his charge. Moses’ only virtue was the fact that he had a direct link to God. Now, whatever we may believe the matter to be, it’s somewhat fortunate for Moses to have such access, isn’t it? And right down the ages, we have the papacy wielding such immense power by virtue of the fact that christian kingdoms of the time required the divine sanction to rule that only the pope could provide — else, such a king would not be recognized.
Quite a bit of power there, ya? An excerpt from The Prince:
“Moreover it somewhat facilitates the matter in that the Prince is constrain’d, because he hath not other dominions, in person to come and dwell there. But to come to these who by their own vertues, and not by fortune, attain’d to be Princes; the excellentest of these are Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and such like; and though of Moses we are not to reason, he onely executing the things that were commanded him by God; yet merits he well to be admir’d, were it only for that grace that made him worthy to converse with God. But considering Cyrus, and the others, who either got or founded Kingdomes, we shall find them all admirable; and if there particular actions and Lawes be throughly weigh’d, they will not appeare much differing from those of Moyses, which he receiv’d from so Sovraigne an instructer. And examining their lives and actions, it will not appeare, that they had other help of fortune, than the occasion, which presented them with the matter wherein they might introduce what forme they then pleas’d; and without that occasion, the vertue of their mind had been extinguish’d; and without that vertue, the occasion had been offer’d in vaine. It was then necessary for Moses to find the people of Israel slaves in AEgypt, and oppress’d by the AEgyptians, to the end that they to get out of their thraldome, should bee willing to follow him.”
— The Prince, Chap. VI, Niccolo Machiavelli
Don’t mind ‘ye olde englishe’, that’s the translation on the subject I found via Project Gutenberg. I was doing some thinking on the complicity of adherents to the authority of the incumbent. It’s obvious that fear motivates the one, while one could even say that a certain sense of loyalty informs such actions (being complicit, that is). I was wondering how fear itself leads one to do extraordinary things. I’m no expert (by which I don’t mean: I am not fearful). It is as if the threat of force, or the display of power, automatically legitimizes itself through the fear it invokes in observers.
I ran across another quote, this time almost 400 years after Machiavelli made his observations, describing the absurdity in Kafka’s The Trial. The protaganist succumbs to the power of the courts which have accused him of something we never really find out (and because it’s immaterial). It is how the protaganist succumbs that is interesting. He doesn’t resign himself to his fate, he rationalizes his fate by identifying with the accusation and the accusers: if the courts have found him guilty, then he is guilty and he must now do everything in his power to allow said court to prosecute him, going so far as feeling shame for being unable to thrust the dagger deeper in the final scene of that book.
Kundera makes an interesting observation:
“[W]herever power deifies itself, it automatically produces its own theology; wherever it behaves like God, it awakens religious feelings toward itself; such a world can be described in theological terms.”
— The Art of the Novel, Milan Kundera
What struck me about that quote is how power gathers unto itself an elaborate machinery, bound together by complicit adherents to the theology of said power. It might be useful to make a brief sketch of the theological myths engendered by the incumbent to justify their actions.
There are appeals to fear: if we allow supposed ‘thought crimes’ such as thinking like a racist, or thinking like a Marxist, and then broadcasting these opinions, we are in the danger of another May 13th riot.
There are appeals to foundational myths: we are a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society with social harmony as the bedrock of our implicit social contract. Anything to disrupt this must be anathema.
There are appeals to our ‘moral sense’: being racist is immoral because we seem to be judging other people on subjective reasons with no basis in fact, and — depending on your moral system — is either sinful, unreasonable, not virtuous and etc.
I think it’s interesting that almost all the reasons above appeal in some way to accepted social values; the last two reasons can conceivably be employed in rhetorical slants that do not evoke fear per se, but are designed to bring forth feelings of shame in the person, and to encourage a person to castigate another who entertains thoughts of anything prohibited by the incumbent.
All of this is, I believe, for the purpose of legislating your thoughts. Today, the issue is racism, tomorrow, it could be something else much dearer to your heart. Unfortunately, you can’t legislate thoughts unless you convince a person that such thoughts are wrong, illegal and will evoke a response from the incumbent, especially if such thoughts are published or broadcasted.
In my opinion, what’s worse is when the incumbent or any authority for that matter, recruits others to do for them what they cannot do all the time. Authority creates a cohort of adherents who act as thought police, either motivated by fear or convinced by the soundness of Authority’s pronouncements. This way, we don’t really have to fear Big Brother only, but we have to begin fearing our fellow men. History has a way of confirming this, as you would realize if you’ve read of stories about Hitler Youths, or life behind the Iron Curtain. I’ve only read a few, so I could be talking utter cock. Or worse, I could be accused of paranoia.
But just maybe, just maybe, I fear slippery slopes to hell for good reason.
