Who Is Machiavelli's The Prince Still Relevant Today?

In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his key piece of work, ‘The Prince’, as a study of human nature and the political sphere, and put forward a set of characteristics that the next ruler of his home Italian city-state of Florence should abide by. Machiavelli painted a very pessimistic picture of the nature of man, which is a common feature in realist theories today. I will discuss this focus on human nature in both Machiavelli’s work, as well as how it is relevant in contemporary realist theories today, with the example of the work by Hans Morgenthau. I will then offer a feminist critique on this depiction of human nature, arguing that these realist theories allow men, and masculinity, to dominate, at the expense of acknowledging women in politics.

Realists, especially the classical realists, argue that their theory is based on objective knowledge and a realistic view of human nature, and that all politics is subject to this manifestation of the corruptible and egotistical human nature (Lebow 2013: 61). This pessimistic outlook of human nature was first introduced by Machiavelli in the 16th century, and is still relevant today as one of the hallmark principles of realist theories.

Machiavelli, in writing ‘The Prince’, changed direction from the ‘idealism’ of his political science predecessors, and rejected the traditional morality of their politics (Mindle 1985: 213; Patrick 2014: 1). He sought to observe political life and human nature as they really were, without any delusions or idealism, and thus began the realist school of political science thought (Mindle 1985: 212). Machiavelli’s

). Gender is a socially and historical constructed concept, and has asymmetrical power in international relations, often excluding women from political life (Tickner and Sjoberg 2013: 206; True 2001: 236-237). Realists argue that they have put forward an objective and universal knowledge, however feminists argue that their ‘knowledge’ is socially constructed and favours the masculine ideals, and either denying or misrepresenting the women in politics (Tickner 1988: 432; Alexandre 1989: 6 cited in True 2001: 240). As argued by Cynthia Enloe, women have always been a part of international relations but have largely been ignored (True 2001: 239). Realist theorists have made assumptions about masculinity and its relativity to describe human nature, such as characteristics such as rational, self-nterest focuses and autonomous (True 2001: 250). These assumptions are critiqued by feminists as being at best a partial representation of the truth, and argued as continuing the power and knowledge of a male dominated international relations system (Tickner 1988: 429,