Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

Political Theory
Final Paper

Foucault vs. Hobbes, and Machiavelli Power by definition is the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy. The question is now not what power is but how do the means of which power is exerted form and who or whom enforces these means. There are several ways to answer this question, none of which are entirely correct. By looking at the theories provided by Michel Foucault and comparing them to Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes we will gain a general understanding of these philosophers response to the ideas Foucault has about power and the correct ways to coerce society. “This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place…
in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure… all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism” (Foucault 109). Quoted, is Foucault’s reference to Jeremy Bentham’s concept of Panopticon. Panopticon, as pictured by Bentham, is a systematic prison in which a ring of cells surrounds a single watchtower. The cells are lit from the back so the guards can see what prisoners are doing at all times. Light is shining into the cells as well, so that prisoners cannot see that they are being watched. “The enclosed segment space, observed at every point, in which individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded… in which each individual is constantly located, examined” (109). The prisoners never know is they are being watched at any moment, there may not even be a guard present. “Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility” (111). The Guard, who represents power, is invisible. Foucault uses Bentham’s Panopticoms greater theme to describe how invisible power is exuded throughout modern day society. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes himself the power relation in principle of his own subjection” (112). The invisible power works in such a way that people conformed to a norm, a self imposed subjection to the greater good, knowing that there is the possibility that they are being watched at all times. Self-subjection relays power in a positive light, allowing for the disposal of punishment. “So it is not necessary to use force to constrain the convict to good behavior…no more chains, no more heavy locks; all that was needed was that the separations should be clear and the openings well arranged” (112). Instead of punishment Foucault focuses on a disciplinary mechanism, “a functional mechanism that must improve the exercise of power by making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for society to come” (115). This mechanism empowers the concept of the gaze. Invisible power gazes upon us and normalizes us, bringing knowledge of how we ought to act. Eventually this knowledge becomes internalized to the point where we do not experience it. We act subconsciously, coercing ourselves. As a society, we are destined to be normalized toward a certain mode of living and dying, unable to escape from the gaze. This disciplinary mechanism is not taken over by one specific institution, but rather by many different institutions such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and the state or even exercised on general ideas like sexuality and psychology. Each of these institutions provides its own gaze, defining a set of mores, what is right and wrong, “reduces the number of those who exercise it, while increasing the number of those on whom it is exercised” (114) “Where there is no common power, there is no law, no injustice” Quoted by Thomas Hobbes, he finds that it is necessary to establish a common power in society to establish order. This common power is embodied through a political figure, the Leviathan, “The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from… the injuries of one another…. is, to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon an Assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one will… This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unite of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man”. Men enter into a social contract with each other to submit their individual powers and rights to one common man, the Leviathan. By surrendering their powers to the Leviathan, they give the sovereign the power to do whatever he finds necessary to protect the people and society. The sovereign’s rein of power is honored in exchange for societies protection and their right to self-preservation. Once man has given up their rights to the sovereign they are subject to his laws and must forever be loyal. In exchange for loyalty the sovereign cannot punish an unjust man. With this exception the sovereign is always right, with every doctrine or philosophical idea he establishes considered acceptable. People respect the decisions of the Leviathan and help establish order because they coerce the sovereignty upon themselves through their contract with each other. The Leviathan becomes a separate sovereign body that rules over them.
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. He who believes himself the master of others does not escape being more of a slave that they” (664). Machiavelli’s previous statement identifies that as humans we are already born into chains and confinements of power. The ideal enforcement of power would be one that enables society to still be in a sense free. The solution is to give up our individual wills, wants, and desires into a general will, for the good of society, “each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (669). By wiling out our rights to a general will be bind ourselves to its power that it exerts over us, very similar to Hobbes idea of the Leviathan being composed of many peoples idealisms. The difference between the two is that Hobbes sovereign figure is independent of the people where as Rousseau’s is bound to each individual. “The general will is always right and always tends towards the public unity” (673). Refusals of the general will is not acceptable, “whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to by the entire body” (670).
When comparing all three philosophers there are many similarities as to how power should be exercised and by what mechanisms it is established.
All three theorists agree on the fact that the people have coerced the power among themselves. Of the two contrasting theorists to Foucault, the evidence provided by Thomas Hobbes argues a better answer parallel to the ideas presented by Foucault. How should power be exercised among the people was the question imposed. Reiterating on Foucault’s answer in that power is an invisible force that lacks physical discipline. Society, out of knowledge of the constant gaze, manipulates their actions to conform to the norms of society and behave accordingly. This self-coercion is successful because it is widespread, lightweight, and easy to enforce. Hobbes has similar notions as to the expression of power in society. People coerce the power among themselves by willing their rights to the Leviathan. The Leviathan is a separate body that is not involved in the social contract that these individuals enter with each other. Being that the Leviathan requires loyalty and is viewed as always being right there is no controversy in the matter, making the delegation of power a peaceful and light process. Hobbes also is in consent with Foucault in that you do not need to exercise discipline to make power work. Power will work if people know that their actions are being accounted for and they can be held responsible for them. Although Machiavelli gives some credible notions as to how power should be exerted, these are the many main concepts as to why Thomas Hobbes provides the better answer to the exercising of power in accordance to
Foucault.

Word count: 1393