Machiavellian Parenthood

"Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved. [...] Love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned; but fear is held together by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you." -Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince.

I've been meaning to write an essay-rant with this title for a number of months now, despite the fact that I've realized since then that there are probably a number of philosophers that are better suited to my analogy than Machiavelli himself. Regardless, I'm writing on the grounding premise of the political philosophy he represents, expressed nicely in the above quote: that a ruler would rather be feared than loved. It is well understood that an infinite number of analogies have gotten screwed up because the structures of Family, Politics and Theology have been confused with one another. In an attempted bypass of this screwed-up-ed-ness, I shall note early on that I admit that this is a very limited analogy. I mean only to address that which I quote here. That having been said:

Me being an aspiring skeptic as well as a rebellious teenager, the analogous parallel I intend to draw is between this and a certain branch of... shall we say, parental philosophy, with which I am particularly familiar. The premise of this philosophy is that it is better for children to be raised with a foundation of healthy fear (which is constant) instead of solely love (which is fickle). I'm afraid this wording leaves a regrettably bitter taste in our mouths. Maybe only for me. But I believe most of us like to think that love is the best way. Even those that support Machiavellian Parenthood would like to think that they think that love is the best way. Even Machiavelli said that "every prince ought to wish to be considered kind rather than cruel." It is obvious that Love is desirable- preferable- covetable. Yet practically, this is idealistic, they would say. Yet Love cannot operate on its own. Yet Love is not the most orderly, healthy, successful way to run a government- to run a family. It is then that rulers resort to the constant power of Fear.

In defense of those parents that support this philosophy, the idea is absolutely not to make the children hate the parents. In fact, the case is quite the contrary: the entire idea of using fear is to properly check the people's- the children's- anger. Since "this can be said about the generality of men [and by extension, children], that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger [and] greedy for gain," children will always be upset, angry, and have a desire to rebel, without regard to the quality of the parent's upbringing. Both love and hatred lead to uprising (whether it directly causes or simply allows it is the difference), so it is best to maintain fear above all else (in most parents' cases, hopefully, for the sake of p/maternal love) in order to prevent the children from rebelling and thereby hurting themselves as well as the parents:

"A prince must nevertheless make himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love; since to be feared and not to be hated can very well be combined."

From a parental perspective, it really is a very appealing idea. A very healthy idea. A very orderly and successful idea. It seems that it would raise much kinder, more balanced, respectful children if they grew up with a sort of reverence for their parents. If they were made to regard their parents not with the negligible tie of friendship, but with the iron core of fear, in the hope that eventually the grown child will understand the merit behind its utilization. This gives the parent, who almost unquestionably has the greater overall wisdom, knowledge, and general know-how, the ability to steer their children in the best direction they know without the uncredited opposition of the child, who clearly does not know what is best for him. If a child thinks of his parent as a mere equal, a mere friend, as is argued would be the case in a love-only relationship, the moment the child cannot see that the parent is acting for his own good will, he will rebel, casting away the parent's plan of good will and embracing his own downfall. Any good parent would argue that whatever disciplinary means needs to be taken to prevent this end is justified, correct? ...um, correct?

I don't believe it to be that simple. I believe that there is a beauty concerning parenthood that surpasses the pessimism of Absolutism by Divine Right. I believe that there is as more satisfactory approach that may be taken concerning the upbringing of children that would yield a much deeper ultimate respect for parents while maintaining the love-based relationship. Friendship. I believe that the necessary measures toward preventing one's children's 'self-destruction' would rightly be a lifestyle, not a bunch of fear-inspiring single actions.

I do not believe that children are stupid. They- we, I suppose- may be slightly plebeian at times, particularly at younger ages. It is simply human nature to be selfish. Even if objectively we would agree with our parents, personally, of course, punishment is never fun, so naturally we are opposed. But even plebeians may learn, and it is the prince's duty to educate them. It is the prince's duty to provide an example, a lifelong example. It is the prince's duty to attempt to help the plebeians understand what is right and why it is right. It is simply wrong, in my mind, to keep from telling children the motivation for parental action simply because one believes the child will not understand or because there is no need for the child to know (particularly at an older age). I believe in the freedom of speech, that all people have the right to express their opinions and reason it out with their leaders until authority (the parents) must make the ultimate decision. Yes, the children will be upset. I agree with at least that piece of the above philosophy, that the children will never be satisfied completely. The children will inevitably become angry. Mopey. Annoyed. Cranky. Rude. That's what children do, unfortunately. That's what people do. But they deserve their voice. They deserve the chance to explain themselves. Even if they can't do it very well. Even if they don't get their say in the end. And they deserve the chance to be explained to. They deserve to be informed of the reasons their autonomy is being infringed on, even if they do not agree with those reasons.

All this is simply a very basic, foundational mutual respect. Believe it or not, children and parents are equals. Like men and women in a marital relationship, they play different roles, but neither group is better than the other. If children can see that their parents respect them, they are altogether more likely to respect their parents in the same way, by simply following the example. And not only are they more likely to respect their parents, but also the rest of their friends, teachers, etc.

Furthermore, a parent must avoid inciting fear in their children in the hope that they will abstain from a certain action as a result, because this teaches the children absolutely nothing. Imagine this example: a 12-year-old boy comes home after school and immediately plops himself in front of the TV and starts playing video games. The mother understands that he must do his homework first, because otherwise homework will get neglected and end up getting done late at night with more apathy than effort. What must she do to prevent her son from harming himself? The "Machiavellian" method would be to tell him that he will be grounded if he goes to play videogames before doing his homework again. The mother may have told him to do this out of love, but does this teach the boy that he should not play video games before doing homework? NO! He simply learns that he will be punished for disobeying his mother, that she is the enemy keeping him from videogames and forcing him into something he does not want to do. He may obey, but it will be solely because he does not want to be grounded. (Positive incentives are just as bad: "if you do your homework when you're supposed to for a week, I'll give you chocolate" results in the child doing his homework solely because he wants chocolate. This is more along the lines of the "love" Machiavelli was referring to: that is not love, that is good favor. That is sucking up to your children, which is also not right). I believe it would be an altogether more constructive method to ask him to pause the game and explain to him something like this: that he would 1. have to spend a lot less time doing it 2. do better in school if he did his homework when he isn't tired, and 3. it would create a greater overall sense of happiness because he wouldn't have it restricting him all afternoon. Then, crucially, the mother must wait for his response and attentively consider whatever points he brings up, even being willing to concede to his path of action if it is reasonable enough. Imagine the boy said that he could do his homework after dinner because he isn't tired yet then, and he doesn't feel "restricted" by his homework at all. One could answer by telling him that it would still take him a much longer time after dinner because he would be more tired than now, and that he would want to do it even less then. One could tell him that he would feel a lot happier playing his videogames if he had just finished his homework than if he had to go to bed after doing his homework. One could tell him that he would have a greater sense of accomplishment. There are an endless number of contentions to bring up against his argument. The parent does not need to use all of them. If the parent truly believes that their path of action is superior, they should be willing to defend it. Once the argument has been brought down to a contention or two, the mother may simply say that she, as the authority, finds the points on her side of the argument stronger and that he must go do his homework. And at this point, he must obey (I'll end the hypothetical scenario here, as there are a number of ways he could react that would have to be dealt with correctly, but his initial reaction to the correct method is probably not very different from the initial reaction to Machiavellian action).

It seems like it takes a lot longer this way on paper, but really it only takes a minute or two as opposed to thirty seconds, and treating children in this way helps the child recognize that the parent actually has reasons for doing what she does and helps him feel respected, allowing him to develop respect for her. It helps him think through the reasons he has for wanting to do what he does without any external prompting, and recognize that he must have reasons the parent must deem superior in order to win the argument. Yet it retains the one and I believe only benefit of fear: teaching a respect for authority.

Hence, all this to explain this: that fear and hatred must both be avoided at all costs. Love is something much stronger, much better, and more long-lasting. It is not simply good favor, as Machiavelli uses it in his political context, it the long-lasting bond of family and deep friendship. It is more moral. It is as or even more effective. I do not believe there is any reason other than self-centered, short-sighted, lazy thoughtlessness to support Machiavellian Parenthood.