Fortuna’d son

by Carl Dyke

I just almost got myself into an internet fight with a deontologist.

Fortunately I kept my wits about me and took a powder. Nothing good ever comes of getting into it with the righteous and literal-minded. The occasion was a Facebook post on Erica Benner’s Guardian essay asking “Have we got Machiavelli all wrong?” Well of course ‘we’ have. She tells the familiar story of teaching Machiavelli the usual way, as a shill for power; but then starting to pay attention to all the stuff he says (especially in the Discourses on Livy) about freedom and citizenship and republican virtue; and finally realizing that all of the Prince stuff is framed by the other stuff as cautionary tales and instructions to a free people on how to spot and resist tyranny. This version of the argument obviously has Trump in mind. Of course careful readers have been having something like this epiphany for hundreds of years, not least Gramsci, as I have discussed at length.

The deontologist shrugged off the context and insisted on the text, where Machiavelli plainly says things about the exercise of power that are morally repugnant. QED. Machiavelli is the Disneyland of is/ought theorists. Never is it more plain that deontology (and its evil twin consequentialism) emerges from fundamental intellectual laziness. Morals do all the work of keeping things neat and linear, selecting out a priori all of the confounds. Nowhere to be found is any sense that the world is a manifold we stumble through with all manner of dispositions, habits, practices, heuristics, improvisations, reflexes, desperate gambles, selective ignorances, constraints, affordances, conditions, situations, assemblages, trajectories, strategies, roles, identities, networks, and whatnot before we ever get anywhere near ‘ethics’, the tidy parlor game of the mind. Take your shoes off before you walk on the carpet.

I am aware that there are myriad permutations and subtleties I am trampling upon here. It is my intention, nay, duty in life to never get drawn into any detailed examination of these. They have nothing to do with any serious business. With Machiavelli, we start with a person trying to make sense of and be effective within a lifeworld, a particular situation in turn of the 16th century Italy that constitutes and embeds him in particular conditions, dynamics, opportunities, threats, resources, and so on. He remains interesting because he takes a real crack at that, which means he has zero fucks to give about systematic ethics.

Nowadays we talk about real takings a crack in terms of complex dynamical systems. Machiavelli signals that’s what he’s up to, according to the available idiom, through the concept of fortuna. In my dissertation I talked generally about fortuna as contingency, following Pocock. But I would now translate fortuna and its conceptual partner ‘corruption’ into the range of complex dynamics covered by chaos, emergence, nonlinearity, and self-organization, arising respectively from broad historical processes and human relations more specifically. As an analyst, Machiavelli saw chaotic historical and interactive fields that defied linear causal analysis. As a strategist, he was looking for the stocks and flows that could be nudged toward emergence into a (meta)stable political order.

Here’s a characteristic orienting gesture, from The Prince chapter XXV, “What Fortune Can Effect in Human Affairs and How to Withstand Her:”

It is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let chance govern them. This opinion has been more credited in our times because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion. Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.

So much is happening that is not and cannot be under any kind of direct human control. It would be reasonable to give up all hope for intentional action. But he sees free will as one constrained operator within a dynamic field, and on that limited basis it’s worth working out how to be more rather than less effective.

His solution relies first on the pre-stocking of all of the resources, conditions, and happy accidents needed to assemble the new order: a free and virtuous citizenry, custom, law, yes ethics, religion, institutions, checks and balances among the competing power bases. The configuration and interaction of these make up “the spirit of the times:”

I believe also that he will be successful who directs his actions according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not accord with the times will not be successful. Because men are seen, in affairs that lead to the end which every man has before him, namely, glory and riches, to get there by various methods; one with caution, another with haste; one by force, another by skill; one by patience, another by its opposite; and each one succeeds in reaching the goal by a different method. One can also see of two cautious men the one attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they conform in their methods to the spirit of the times.

This is a rudimentary theory of inus (insufficient but nonredundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient) conditions. One size does not fit all. Not only are there many, path dependent ways to skin a cat, but the decision path is itself embedded in a larger dynamic field of supporting and thwarting conditions. Bloody messes are heavily represented in the possibility fan.

Anyone (say, a Prince) who wants to be something like intentionally effective has to orient themselves to existing flows, working with what is already working. Even then, it’s important to clean out as many variables as possible so that the various flows can be channeled together into a metastable, homeostatic order, actively maintained by continuing collective effort:

And this must be taken as a general rule: that never or rarely does it happen that any republic or realm is well-ordered from the beginning, or altogether reformed from its old order, if it is not ordered by one… but a prudent orderer of a republic, if he has this will to benefit not himself but the common good… has to arrange to have this authority alone; nor will a wise mind take issue with any extraordinary action necessary to order a realm or constitute a republic…. [But] if one is appropriate to order things, the order will not last long when it remains on the shoulders of the one, but very well when it remains in the care of many, and when it is up to many to maintain it. Because just as many are not suited to order a thing, due to not knowing its good because of the diverse opinions among them, so once they know it they cannot agree to abandon it.” Discourses, book I, chapter IX.

So what does it mean to be “Machiavellian?” It certainly doesn’t mean to focus on ethics, which are at best a strand of the larger analysis that involved him. I suppose if he thought you could get anything done with ethics, he would have been much more interested in them. But it also doesn’t mean simply being an amoral shill for power. Machiavelli liked republics and liberty very much – they are explicitly the end goal, and his life’s work. But he didn’t think there was anything easy about getting or maintaining them, and that lots of things had to line up to make them possible, none of them conforming to abstract ideals. It’s an old point, older even than Machiavelli, but it bears repeating in whatever ways the spirit of the times call forth. Nowadays we might say he didn’t have the privilege of focusing on ethics.


7 Comments to “Fortuna’d son”

  1. Just a friendly nod of the head — we’ve agreed down the line on Machavelli since I can remember.
    One pedantic point — also “well known”. THE PRINCE consists of lightly reworked big chunks pulled out of the manuscript of the Discorsi. I think that a number of people have “relocated” the chunks. I did it long ago when I was using commentaries on Machiavelli (along with fumetti and cruciverbi) to try to learn the language. The job is easy if you have the Livy alongside: the Discorsi follows nearly page by page, and you can find the gaps and so on.. My version is long disappeared. So the contextualization issue is resolvable textually as well as substantively.
    It’s always interested me the way that “Virtu'” is normative without being moral or ethical. Virtuosity isn’t lightly so called.

  2. A recurring line in Shadowbahn, Steve Erickson’s latest novel: “Part of being great is being lucky.” Here the line is spoken by Jack Kennedy, destined in this alt history not to be elected president. Why not? “The…zeitgeist is missing a piece,” he tells Bobby. “There’s no sense to me.”

    Momentarily jettisoning his usual aversion to reflection, he thought, This is my little brother’s failing. Bobby believes life is supposed to be fair or, if not fair exactly, then serial, consequential, a sequence of things that lead to other things that are led to by earlier things. Randomness, caprice, the errant happenstance of a shot fired (or not) from a depository window, or a song that falls (or doesn’t) from the sky that changes (or doesn’t) the world and all its possibilities — none of these fit in the little Jesuit’s moral scheme of things. “Why should I be president,” he posed socratically with no heat or reproach, “I who am… nothing if not the triumph of somebody else’s idea of our era, somebody else’s idea of what the times are. So,” Jack sighed grimly, drawing a final puff on what would have been his victory cigar and finally absorbing the enormity of what has been lost. “I suppose this means my chances of ever fucking Marilyn have gone out the window.”

  3. DtE, right and right. On the Prince/Discourses concordance, the philologists later got ahold of that and decided he wrote Prince first, it didn’t work, so he went back and essentially wrote the rest of the Discourses around it. Of course what he actually did was he had a big work in progress and he delivered it in various extracts at various times for various purposes, as he explains one must do above. But thinking about intellectual production that way makes some folks’ heads esplode and that’s before you even start talking about what that means for context, subtext, intertext, paratext, and so on, let alone shit happening.

    I love that point about virtu’. I hadn’t quite thought of it that way, but I should have since you and JohnD have talked about exactly that here before (re: jazz, etc.).

    And of course I had your point about Ryan and the linemen in mind here too. He’s not looking so virtuous on health care, but the dismantlement of the regulatory state by ukase is moving right along so health care may well have just been the head fake at this stage. We’ll see how serious they get about legislating when they turn to tax reform, or as I call it, wealth care.

  4. JohnD, ha. Hard to imagine ol’ Donald having this kind of moment, huh? And yet that blizzard of timely contingency explains him like nothing else possibly could.

  5. Carl, you are on a roll! I will happily steal “INUS” and try to remember the source when I use it.

  6. It’s in the commons, John. Have at it!

  7. When I gave this as a talk recently, I stumbled upon the observation that while virtu’ is about actively surfing complexity, corruption for Machiavelli basically means giving up and passively collapsing into the path of least resistance. Corruption is what you get when people stop trying.

Leave a Reply!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: