Fear and Leaders

I disagree because Ralph was not capable of enforcing rules or getting the other boys to work because he had no fear factor. If he had asserted dominance and threatened for punishment more, he would have been able to effectively get the other boys to pull their weight and do their jobs.

I agree with what Machiavelli suggests as fear is required to control a mass population and allow for your leadership to be secure. It also is a great way to ensure true friendships as people will not betray someone if there is a known punishment which they may have to face. However, without fear, leading is still possible but there would be a lack of security in the throne and the masses may not be as obedient as they would with existing fear.

Along with a certain amount of fear, maybe there are also different kinds of fear. For example, fear may stem from respecting someone's power as opposed to resenting someone's power.

Machiavelli believes that fear is needed in order to control a population, and The Lord of the Flies provides evidence to prove this. In order for a leader to rule over his citizens, he needs to be feared by them so that they will listen to his orders. Love can lead to betrayal, but fear keeps people in check, which is why "it is much safer to be feared than loved" (Machiavelli 2). In The Lord of the Flies, Ralph is the leader of the population on his island and must find a way to lead everyone in order to stay alive to be rescued. As a leader, Ralph does not inflict fear onto the residents of the island, and in turn, they do not listen to his orders and do not pay him respect. Ralph tries to use love to lead, but the lack of fear allows the children to run amok while he tries to get everyone to work on the survival plan.

@Luca P

You state that if someone is loved then there is no need for fear as they would "follow happily" however, if you look at this in the situation from a child to teacher standpoint, a teacher may instil fear on the child but the child may like the teacher. So what Machiavelli is saying could be looked at in two situations: a prince who the people fear and hence, dislike or a prince who people fear but favour.

Machiavelli believes that anyone can be a leader but if they are feared rather than loved they have more control over their followers. He states that love is easier broken than fear. I agree with Machiavelli, because if someone is feared it's harder to turn against them. In Lord of the Flies Jack is feared by most of the other boys because he is older & rude. Except, people listen to Ralph more because he is less feared than Jack.

In Machiavelli's excerpt from "The Prince" he states how a speculates that a leader can lead both with fear and love, but never hatred. He states that "it is better to be feared than loved" (Machiavelli 2) because fear is easier to control and more predictable. Even if it is safer to be feared than loved, it is not impossible to use a different element other than fear to guide a civilization.This relates to lord of the flies because at this point in the story Ralph, the main character, tries to lead out of superiority and kindness, not fear. So I believe that Machiavelli distinguishes the line between fear and too much fear as cruelty, which would lead to hatred, but a leader should be able to sacrifice their kind reputation to unify his/her people.

I agree with you. If Ralph was more feared he could get better control over the group & they could get things done a lot quicker. I

According to Machiavelli, a leader cannot lead without fear. Fear must be established to retain order and to prevent people from doubting their leader. I absolutely agree with this. I feel that it is very important to show what you're made of to prevent doubts about whether or not you could be a strong leader. It is shown in Lord of the Flies when Jack is trying to show his power over the littleuns when he is giving the pig he killed. He shows cruelty when Piggy asks for food and doesn't respond because "Jack had meant to leave him alone in doubt, as an assertion of power, but for Piggy by advertising his omission made more cruelty necessary" (Golding 74).

I agree with your statement on the establishment of fear. People have to know their place and be in order. While love seems nicer and does work, fear is much safer option. It is much easier to fear something rather than to love something.

I completely agree with your first statement that a leader does not necessarily need fear to rule. However, I believe it is arguable as to whether Ralph leads the kids well or not. For example, he could not gain enough control over them to stop the forest fire and didn't even notice there was a forest fire until Piggy told him so. Furthermore, he lacks complete control as almost all the kids run off when shelters need to be made leaving only him and Simon.

According to Machiavelli, a leader cannot lead well without fear because fear will maintain order within the people being governed. I agree with him because it is human nature to do whatever we want to do if we are not given restrictions or fear to hold us back. If people fear the leader, then a new type of respect will emerge. this will allow the leader to have more control over his/her people. In Lord of the Flies, fear is a factor which leads Ralph to be elected leader. All of the boys are very scared of being stranded on an island and each one "desperately wanted to go home"(Golding 22). Even though this fear is not directed at Ralph right now, that shared fear between the boys allowed Ralph to stand tall and become their leader.

I think you make a really good point. The way that Machiavelli's concept is employed in Lord of the Flies is really evident in your post. In both situations it is shown that being loved by the people can make the leader more influential. However, I fell that maybe if Ralph showed his leadership in a slightly scary way at least once, the boys would follow his words more carefully.

I would have to agree on you with the fact that without fear that leading is still possible. Not everyone will like the leader but it's better to have the majority supporting you and the goals trying to be accomplished. At the same time fear may be needed especially if there is alot of crime a leader that comes and takes over and enforces punishment as well as putting a little fear in the people is for the good of the whole.

Machiavelli makes some good points as he focuses on fear love and hate. The best solution is that " one should wish to be both" it's the fact that it's hard to find a person who can do both and be a good leader. A balance of the two will leave a leader in a good position. If a leader is feared its typically because they are cruel which leads to hatred. As for as a leader being too loved it can leave them in the same position of them being over thrown. With a balance they slim down those chances by having a balance the leader can build a strong relationship with the people. The leader can find loyalty within the people as well as support. With fear they are able to keep order leaving the society stable.

According to Machiavelli, a leader's ability to lead in reference to fear is determined through the circumstance. In most cases, however, fear is essential to keeping the grip a leader has on his/her rule. Without fear, leaders will be undermined through all endeavors and the imperative job of a leader, protecting the citizens, will not be carried out to accordingly. Fear is needed not only for the ruler but for the ruled. The "subjects" under any kind of leadership must know that their leader has the adequate characteristics such as courage and decisiveness. It is entirely possible for a leader to lead without being feared, although it is not desired. As Machiavelli states, "men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity fir their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails" (Machiavelli 2). In Lord of the Flies, fear plays a role in highlighting the true characterization of each character. Fear is the driving force that makes all the boys work towards survival. If they did not have the fear of dying, none of them would work to survive.

A leader can only be effective if he/she is desired by the people being led. This can only occur if the leader is not an "all -powerful" being without any checks and balances against personal vendettas and personal opinions. There must be some kind of restrictions on a leader. These restrictions must come from the people themselves. As Machiavelli states, everything a leader does, must be for the people; including many bad things. "A prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty" (Machiavelli 1). In order for this statement to be carried out effectively, a leader must have a set of rules documented by the people on how to lead. All the rules and regulations in this said document must be determined by the people being lead, in other words there must be no input from any higher leader or anybody else.

What are the parameters of a leader?

While Machiavelli says that it is possible to be a leader without being feared, he also says that being feared is a much safer option than being loved, but as long as one is successful and does good things for the people he is leading, the people will be grateful and willing to do extravagant things to show their gratitude. He also says that if the worst comes, the fear will help the leader because the people's dread of punishment will keep them from defying. I somewhat agree with what Machiavelli is saying here because someone who is too lenient or kind could be taken advantage of. Fear plays a role in Lord of the Flies as, said before by someone else, Jack tries to control and force people to cooperate by using fear.

Machiavelli believes that a ruler needs to be feared to hold control over his people. I agree with this statement. I believe that a leader should be feared, but people shouldn't stop in terror by his mere presence. Those who are being ruled should be afraid of him if they do something wrong. In other circumstances, they shouldn't have to worry. In Lord of the Flies, fear is the leader of the group of boys. Ralph, the elected leader, doesn't have control of the boys because there are no consequences to their disobedience. However, if the boys disobey the island's wishes then they could get killed.

How does this affect the boys in their day to day lives?

If a leader rules without fear, how will he/she ever take absolute control of the people being led. Isn't there always chance for rebellion or rebellious acts if there is no fear of punishment?

According to Machiavelli, a great leader leads well by instilling fear in his people. There is a difference between fear and hate and a leader knows where to find the balance. People's fear of a leader is synonymous to respect and reverence because "he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated" (Machiavelli). I believe it is necessary for a leader to be obeyed and shown the respect they deserve, but I do not believe they're people should be afraid of them. In The Lord of the Flies, Jack uses fear to control his choir boys. They obey him out of fear but they do not easily respect him. Their obedience is only held through fear of punishment, and they would quickly turn on him if they could. Fear is not always the right way for a leader to control his people.

I agree with you when you say that leaders can lead peacefully and without fear. Your examples of modern-day democracies show this very well., however Machiavelli says that it is necessary to lead effectively by instilling fear into your subjects.

According to Machiavelli, a leader is feared but does not show fear. A leader pleases people, but does not try to. A leader is someone who does not care about what others think about him/her.