10 Fictional Characters who explore the successes and failures of Machiavellianism
Machiavelli was a diplomat from Florence, closely associated with the Medici dynasty, and the author of the book ‘The Prince’ amongst others. The dude was a pragmatist, realist and cutthroat in his understanding of humanity and the vectors of power. To know more about Machiavellianism, one of the three personalities in the Dark Triad in psychology, dare I say the most alluring one, follow this link, because in this piece, I want to critically expose the pitfalls and gaps in the Machaviallinist ideology, but of course, inevitably, I will end up substantiating it too, no doubt, because what this DIVA said like in like the early 16th century cannot be gainsay-ed even today. (It’s almost as if I am manipulated to write this blog)
Of course a few bullet points to cling on to before we proceed, the standard stipulative measures, you know, context building.
(SKIP IF YOU HAVE A BASIC IDEA OF EITHER MACHIAVELLIANISM OR MY BLOGGING STYLE)
? Fictional characters are simply mirror images of real-life characters, living in made-up chronotopes — nevertheless, we cannot claim that they fail to represent society and the people in it wholly. I am simply using them in a as lab-rats of a ‘thought-experiment’.
? Let’s keep in mind the time in which the poor chap was living. Florence was in a constant state of war, the tensions between states/empires and religion was high, and Machiavelli had to endure the rule of several greedy and incompetent regal brats who were in severe need of a political hand-out, and of course there were the frequent cataclysmic plagues that would end half the population in one swing; so you can imagine why he was so brutal about his political philosophy.
?Machiavellianism overlaps with the other two dark edges of that morbid triangle, true, but narcissism and psychopathy are very distinct from what we are going to examine here today. I’ll illustrate with an example, (with fictional characters, duh!). Psychopaths would be all your serial-killers with no or little interiority or inherent feelings, they’re just faking it — they may or may not have moral codes (mostly not, cuz um, they are killers), but a good example would be Dexter Morgan or Ted Bundy or the best example would be Frank Underwood from House of Cards (and yes, they happen to be portrayed as ridiculously charming). Machiavellians do have interiority and a sense of purpose, a strong one that too, and are not devoid of human feelings, they simply choose to detach and train those feelings differently. Narcissists on the other hand, I believe, are not as smart as Machiavellians. They feel, no doubt, may or may not be pragmatic, but they’re mostly just really selfish, with little interest in larger political or mass-level power. They are high-strung people, often prone to emotional outburst unlike the Machiavellians. A good example would be of Viserys Targaryean the younger(narcissist) and of Tywin Lannister (the quintessential Machiavellian practitioner).
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, here’s another set of bullet-points to narrow down the scope of this exercise, because come on, the man wrote more than two intense books (The Prince (1513) and The Art of War (1521), which I have not read by the way) about the psychology of warfare and politics and it would be cruel to not squeeze out only the essence of what he said. These are the larger beliefs that he advocated for achieving political success and the regulation of power, which would be our criterions for assessing the fictional characters in question (who are fairly and objectively Machiavellistic). There will be two parameters for defining “success” ; i) external, political and material victories, ii) Internal gratification, as a consequential culmination of those victories and otherwise.
Machiavellistic beliefs (and some quotes because why not?)
(By the way, Machiavelli proposed all these theoretical ideas, he wasn’t always a judicious follower of his own rules, thankfully, for us that is)
FINALLY, THE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS
(In Order, from most Machiavellistic to least)
Tywin Lannister is the epitome of Machiavelli’s teachings. He’s ruthlessly ambitious and knows exactly what he wants and needs to do to get it. He isn’t a sociopath like Ramsay Bolton, the faceless men or the Night King nor a narcissist like Joffrey. His hankering for leaving a legacy is a strong drive; evidence of his interiority. But what separates him as the ultimate Machiavellianist is that he understands the deeper political truths of Westeros. He who wears the crown, isn’t necessarily always in Power. “Any man who must say ‘I am King’, is no true King at all”.
Unlike Stannis who values religion over the men in his counsel or the Starks who value ethics and love, Tywin follows more or less all the lessons on the board. Tywin knows where to play the diplomat rather than the warrior, like with the Tyrells or when he masterminds the Red Wedding despite it’s obvious peccancy but isn’t just relying on diplomacy like the Tyrells or littlefinger. He fairly succeeds in achieving political glory and intra-personal gratification by the end of his span in the show, despite ironically dying on the toilet seat at the hands of his own son. So what is the potential hole in this Machiavellianist embroidery?
Tywin underestimates the power of the individual and the power of emotion. Tywin also assumes that Tyrion, because he is smart, won’t act out of impulse. But not everybody is that disconnected from feeling. Apart from the extreme ethical violation of sleeping with your son’s girlfriend, Tywin’s own sexual desire (and power-lust) becomes his own enemy, so maybe we ought to add that in our list of Machiavellistic traits to make it more full-poof.
2. Logan Roy (Succession)
In the big dick competition that is Succession, Logan Roy plays the game by the Machiavellianist rulebook. He manipulates every single f*cking perosn in the show, even his children, to secure his ambitions. Unlike Tywin, he’s much better at exploiting his children’s emotions and mobilises their potentials to his own cause. Kendal isn’t a killer (won’t do “anything” to get what he wants and is dumb), Shiv doesn’t follow the “Trust nobody rule” and Roman’s never pragmatic. Marcia is perhaps Machiavelli-like, but nobody beats THE patriarch (not a compliment)
Then why is he number 2? The answer is perhaps an objection that modern psychology and mental-health experts would give you. The ruthless pursuit of power, does not bring a wholesome sense of happiness. Logan remains to be unhappy for the most part of the show despite his corporate victories and nasty machinations. Unlike Tywin, he isn’t able to leave a lasting legacy either (not that the Lannisters ruled forever, but at least Cersei held the throne) and dies a sad, old man. So his Machiavellianism, though Machiavelli does not directly engage with happiness and interiority, is nearly useless towards the end. Surely, he attains virtù, a state wherin one achieves a sense of accomplishment, stability and victory due to the successful wielding of power (and following Machiavellianism) but that isn’t enough, Logan doesn’t surely reach a stage of internal gratification. Succession, the show, through cinematic, psychological and philosophical mediums, conveys that.
3. Robert Ford (Westworld)
Robert Ford is the ultimate creator of artificial intelligence and consciousness in the realm of Westworld. He is a master-manipulator and is callous about any human emotion that the hosts might experience. To achieve his scientific pursuit and again, his legacy, Ford doesn’t stop at the cost of other being’s speed-breakers. The fact that Bernard, who poses as a human, is in fact a host (deception and manipulation), with a terribly tragic story that Ford makes him live (utter cruelty), makes Ford a hard-core Machiavelliest.
Ford only seems to trust Bernard and Dolores in some way, who are both extensions of himself, in the end. He even goes to the extent of slaughtering the other executives without sweating a drop, and his God-complex makes him self-conceited beyond imagination; yet not a mindess narcissist. His engagement with consciousness, feelings and ethics around his hosts takes him away from the psychopath territory, and he is content, rather maliciously satisfied with the way he dies, so what’s his flaw? Ford’s flaw, or rather the reason why he isn’t on the top, is because he is more of a scientist, of a rather Nietzschean philosophy, who is surely hungry for power, but more interested in the fulfillment of a larger dream. The very fact that he orchestrates Dolores’s terrorism of consciousness, knowing the cost of verifying the experiment (and keeping the park alive and/or building the host’s world domination) will be his death, is a major move defying Machiavellistic ideals.
领英推荐
4. Thomas Shelby (Peaky Blinders)
Like Tywin Lannister, Shelby’s pragmatism and charm contribute to his role as a cut-throat leader. Shelby doesn’t play by the rules and isn’t ‘honorable’ when it comes to rivalries though it may seem so. He balances the lion and fox traits and more than the others, fits the character of the ‘The Prince’ that Machiavelli refers to. He builds a circle of resourceful and loyal people around him as Machiavelli suggests a good leader should, however, Shelby doesn’t always exercise emotional restraint.
Peaky Blinders demonstrates the value of family and even love, and Thomas Shelby loses his political grip on occasions when he allows his heart to make decisions. He is also driven by vengeance and impulsiveness, often because of emotionally contagious environment of his social circle. A Machiavellist would review Shelby as a bit beneath their rather superior standards of cold and calculative warfare techniques. Shelby is smart, but he sometimes shows (or is made to show) the impetuousness of youth and the hyperbolised glory of masculine aura.
5. Miranda Priestly (The Devils Wears Prada)
The first woman on the list is the MOTHER of the cold fashion-boss-lady trope. Miranda Priestly is not only one of the most iconic characters to exist in films, but she’s one of the most three-dimensionally realistic yet entertaining characters who people are afraid of. The world she lives in is much closer to the contemporary chronotope compared to the others on the list. Miranda is neither maniacal like Cruella nor is she homicidal like other Femme Fatales of Hollywood. However, she is a wicked pragmatist. “Details of your incompetence do not interest me,” — perhaps is the linchpin condensation of who she is. She values quality and efficiency, she possess unwavering loyalty to her profession (the State, if we are building parallels), she doesn’t care about what people write about her, and most importantly, she is willing to do anything to be on the top. The Devil Wears Prada really stresses on that wisdom of ‘everybody wants to be us’ that Miranda imparts to Andrea. Miranda’s self-gratification is evident in how content she is with the glory she has achieved and also that little smile that sprouts on her face when she observes Andrea walk past the street in the end; it’s a sign of how secure she is with herself. So what’s putting the ‘always on the top Miranda’ in the middle of this list?
We don’t really see Miranda engage in a larger political dialogue. It’s true that Miranda understands better than anyone the obscure and nasty politics within the realm of fashion as she burns Andrea during the whole ‘sweater’ conversation; nevertheless, we don’t see the Glamazon engage in any political rivalry as such (yes, we all hate (Y)Jacqueline). We know little about Miranda’s criminal potential or how much value her children have in her life (we know she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about her husband or any man for that matter). Miranda has the potential, but we simply have little access to her, so that keeps her on number five for me. (Super excited for the sequel tho — that’s all)
6. Alma Coin (The Hunger Games)
From the looks of it, Alma Coin doesn’t really come off as a Machiavellist. She’s never the spotlight of the whole book/movie and not even the prime antagonist. If anyone, Snow is a despot who might be a Machiavellist, but I’d say he has more autocratic and narcissistic traits rather than a goal-driven character hungry to grasp more power. Coin, to me, is one of those slithery characters whose villainy is shrouded so well, that only a person like Katniss who can sniff mal-intentions from a mile away can detect her power-thirsty demeanor. Coin’s biggest Machiavellist move, which ironically also exposes her to Katniss and the others, is to renew the Hunger Games for the children of Panem.
Machiavelli stressed on crushing the enemy completely, rather than displaying mercy and then fearing retaliation. This broad stroke is actually quite smart, because even in the case of Tywin Lannister, though he manages to kill every last Stark in the Red Wedding, leaving Arya and Sansa alive costs him posthumously — Leave one wolf alive and the sheep are never safe. Similarly, the Hunger Games is a political strategy to keep the defeated districts in penury; but the revolution ultimately is the people who are not fully crushed, expressing their vengeance (and in no way am I team Panem, sorry Ceaser) Alma Coin of course wants the sequel Hunger Games to gain power and inevitably perpetuate the same cycle of abuse and she is ALMOST successful in her plotting, I’ll give her that. But she fails to realise how much popularity and maturity Katniss has gained. She’s a deceptive, influential lady, who deserved more screen-time, but nevertheless makes it on this list — if only she was more aware and lion-like.
7. Anna Delvy (Inventing Anna)
You can probably predict why Anna Delvey is quite low on the list. She is partially a narcissist and has very little lion traits, but let’s face it, her fox traits are above and beyond. Anna lies like nobody does, and she creates an empire for herself which is built on a pile of very well crafted lies. Anna is the ultimate manipulator, yet she is not psychopathic. Anna understands the world of rich people better than anybody and she also knows how to act like a leader, although she’s not one. More than a true Machiavelli, I would say, Anna chooses to embody one, like she could have chosen to become anybody she wanted.
While Anna isn’t somebody who holds the State in its highest regard, she is grasping for political power in one way or another and she does have a pessimistic view of the people she coerces which allows her to exploit them to her best. She has moments of stress and insecurity, making her human, but not reactive enough to be foolish. Ultimately, she is outsmarted and her lies catch up to her, but they made a movie out of her, and she’s got fans, so I guess that counts as success on some level.
8. Cersei Lannister (Game of Thrones)
Like father, like daughter, however, as Tyrion puts it, even if he is not half as smart as she is, he’s still smarter than her. But of course, Tyrion is not pragmatic and callous like Cersei. Cersei ranks lower in this list because a) she is incredibly foolish at times b) allows her lion traits to over-power her minimal fox traits c) She loves her children and thus, they become her vulnerability.
If Cersei was able to control and manipulate Joffrey, she would have been higher on the list. If she would handled the Dornish women in advance using diplomacy, Marcella would have lived, if she would have not fallen for the High Sparrow’s trap, a lot of things could have been avoided. To summarize, Cersei is cold and practical, but not far-sighted enough, even until the end, where she clearly has lost to Daenerys but still murders Missendei, hoping to win, instead of fleeing beforehand. Nevertheless, she follows her father’s footsteps. She heads the State, obliterates her enemies from the roots, and pretty much pushes all boundries. But the contradiction with Cersei is that her ‘drive’ is her love for her children, not political power or legacy, and after season 6, she becomes psychopathic after losing her motherhood, so she’s really a different person across the eight seasons of Game of Thrones when we assess her philosophically.
9. Bhallaladeva (Bahubali)
I had to include some characters from Indian cinema, but these two are surely not “just for representation” and neither are they misplaced in this list. They simply happen to be towards the end because a) Indian cinema can very dramatic and exaggerated and thus it’s more about violence and action and little about intellect even if the character in question is a master-mind of a Machiavelli, such is the case of Bhallaladeva. Bhallaladeva is the prime antagonist of the Bahubali films, and the only reason as to why he is second last on this list is because he is portrayed as this malicious ruler who abuses the heroine for absolutely no reason other than to add spice to the film and then there’s a whole wrestling sequence between the hero and the villain which really kills the cold and subtle Machiavellian effect, portraying him as a subject of his own impulsive emotions.
However, Bhallaladeva, if you observe carefully, plays his mother and brother very skillfully. He knows when to speak, what to ask, and he’s got the raw strength of a lion and the calculativeness of the fox. Ruthless, no doubt, he even goes to the extent of killing his own mother to completely vanquish his enemy. But we also know that Bhallaladeva has surrounded himself with people who will sweet-talk him and that he’s not the most diplomatic ruler considering how unhappy people are with him and he has no larger plan to control them other than manual labor. Bhallaladeva is also very low on the list because of how covetous he is about his (dead) brother.
10. Krishna Vasudev Yadav (Oh My God!, Mithun Chakraborty)
Last on the list, but surely not dumbest, Chakraborty’s character exposes the capitalistic fraud of religion and superstition in India. He’s one of the “messengers” of God who fights a case against an atheist, the protagonist, who debunks these corrupt systems. Yadav’s character is not only serene, cold, queer and eccentrically villainous, but unlike his gang of faux messengers, his cool-headedness and his ability to use the concept of God as a shield, as a weapon, as an excuse and as any possible tool of diplomacy, is what makes him the ultimate manipulator. The film dives into how these dhongi babas and leaders of the faith exploit the sentiment of the common man and thrive politically.
But Chakraborty’s character, apart from performing divinity, also understands the deeper political truths of the country. He lets Kanji (the protagonist) in the end when he is defeated, that Kanji may defeat him for now, but people like him will always rise as long as there are people who can be fooled by the blind affection towards God. He is at the end of this list, only because of how Machiavelli saw religion as an opposing force to the State in some sense. His character leverages the very faculty which Machiavelli in his day and time considered tumultuous (ironically for the very same reason that Yadav proves is in fact risky for the stability of the State) and thus he is very Machiavelli in spirit but not Machiavellistic.
Well, that was me. Who do you think are some Machiavellistic characters that I missed?
He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command — Machiavelli
Artist | Educator | Educational Research | APU | MCC
2 个月Love this !! Interesting connections Adit Chandrachud keep writing !