Tempest in a Teaparty: A Machiavellian tale

In Science in Democracy, Mark Brown walks us through an interpretive garden of ideas. There are plaques commemorating Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Dewey, among others. Under each plaque is a story about Science in Democracy, written by the author and quoting other ideas from the likes of Bruno Latour. These stories fold out like a diorama to illustrate a guided history of the evolution of Science in Democracy. The first stop along this journey could very well be re-titled: “Sympathy for the devil: how Machiavelli is just misunderstood.”

While it is true that Niccolo Machiavelli wrote some things that might seem misogynistic or despotic to our 21^st century sensibilities, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater, according to Brown and others. Brown goes on to give an interpretaton of Machiavelli’s works that puts a new spin on the infamous author of The Prince and Discourses on Livy. What seems at first a course interpretation of a prince’s duties and expectations come to life as a commentary on the role of Science and Technology.

Brown says of Machiavelli’s rhetorical stance, “…everyone assumes political actors have power but lack knowledge.” This statement helps place Machiavelli both on the metaphorical plains looking up at the mountain and upon the mountain looking down upon the plains, both knowing the prince and the common people alike. His epistemological arguments are bold, but there are two things that drew my interest.

First, Brown introduces the concept of reflexivity in governance through Machiavelli. The prince’s “…success rested not merely on what they did but on how they adjusted their actions to their circumstances. A prince should not copy historical exemplars but use them as resources for innovative thought and action.” I count this as an eloquent expression of reflexivity. The idea here is that there are always going to be “wicked problems” and there will probably never be singular silver–bullet solutions to fix them. Thus, a constant state of flexibility in mind and approach to science is necessary. The elicitation of expert scientific advice is an iterative process that never ends.

Second, Brown says this, “Popular participation, for Machiavelli, is not about pursuing the good life but about protecting oneself and one’s fellow citizens from domination. Doing so requires not merely civic virtue but institutions that facilitate public contestation of elite decisions.” He goes on to say, “Political elites will always try to usurp the liberty of the people, but the threat can be mitigated through formal institutions that give the citizenry real power.” This seems to me a desire of those in the current movement calling itself the tea party. It would appear that they desire a Voice and that they fear elites telling them what to do. This is different from the idea that there is a group of trusted scientific advisors who help the prince look out for the well-being of the people. In this world-view, those scientists are the enemy of the people, in so far as they seek to establish power and influence for themselves.

So, what Machiavelli and in turn Brown appear to be saying here, is very fundamental. They would look to have a reflexive, iterative, institutionalized process whereby the common people can have input into the science-policy dialog. Again, I believe this sentiment would fit well with the beliefs of those in the Tea party, whether or not they would frame it in such terms.