Fear and Leaders

According to Machiavelli, is it possible for a leader to lead well without fear? Do you agree? What role does fear play in Lord of the Flies?

Anyone can be a leader as long as they take charge. If the people who follow them are in fear of the leader or the situation(s) they are in, they will depend more on the leader. In Lord of the Flies, everyone follows Ralph and sometimes Jack out of the fact that they have no other choice, as time goes on, the kids start to fear their island and their situation.

He believes that it is possible for a leader to lead without the use of fear. I also believe that one does not need fear to lead a group. In Lord of the Flies, fear plays the role of survival in a way. I think it plays that role, because Jack uses fear to control the group in hopes to make everyone cooperate.

Machiavelli believes it's possible to lead without fear? Expand on that idea. Which does he say is safer--to be feared or to be loved?

Leaders do not necessarily need to have their people fear them to be successful. Many leaders stay in power and take charge through methods of peace. Most leaders of present-day democracies are very peaceful. A leader is a leader by their ability to lead and take charge of people. Leading does not require the element of fear. In the Lord of The Flies, Ralph is elected out of his resourcefulness and he does not instill fear in the other kids on the island. However, he still leads them very well.

VP wrote:He believes that it is possible for a leader to lead without the use of fear. I also believe that one does not need fear to lead a group. In Lord of the Flies, fear plays the role of survival in a way. I think it plays that role, because Jack uses fear to control the group in hopes to make everyone cooperate.

Machiavelli believes it's possible to lead without fear? Expand on that idea. Which does he say is safer--to be feared or to be loved?

According to Machiavelli, it's possible to be a leader without being feared, but he says its much "safer to be feared than loved". He says its difficult to unite fear and love in one person. 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 is broken at every opportunity for their advantage. A leader can rule without being feared, however it doesn't have to be a good ruling. Although the leader, is "nice", it wouldn't be good for the kingdom since he doesn't have much control over the population. Some fear should be installed to make sure that people are doing as they say.

Yes, it is possible. A wise leader does not need fear to lead- if the people willingly follow them, fear will come naturally out of respect for the leader, without intervention. Differing from this, fear plays a staggering role in "Lord of the Flies". The boys' fear of the beast controls virtually everything that they do, which ends up being even more dangerous than the beast itself.

According to Machiavelli, it is not possible to be a good leader without fear. "Men love according to their own will, and fear according to the Prince." A good or successful leader uses violence and tactical public punishments or power shows to strike fear in the people. In my opinion, though it is insensitive, a very limited amount of power shows or fear tactics will allow for a leader to successfully stay in power. But, nowadays, that is not as important. In most of the world, a successful leader may not have as much power, but has more support by the people. Think of current politics. Most american presidents that had overwhelming support did better as leaders, and vice versa (presidents that did better politically had more support). No longer is violence and fear used as a means of control. This, though, only really applied to democracies, while Machiavelli's theory really only applies to autocracies.

sarah wrote:According to Machiavelli, it's possible to be a leader without being feared, but he says its much "safer to be feared than loved". He says its difficult to unite fear and love in one person. 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 is broken at every opportunity for their advantage. A leader can rule without being feared, however it doesn't have to be a good ruling. Although the leader, is "nice", it wouldn't be good for the kingdom since he doesn't have much control over the population. Some fear should be installed to make sure that people are doing as they say.

So, do you agree? Did Machiavelli convince you?

AnnaNikowlysun wrote:Yes, it is possible. A wise leader does not need fear to lead- if the people willingly follow them, fear will come naturally out of respect for the leader,  without intervention. Differing from this, fear plays a staggering role in "Lord of the Flies". The boys' fear of the beast controls virtually everything that they do, which ends up being even more dangerous than the beast itself.

Would Machiavelli agree with you?

Machiavelli says it is better to be feared than loved because he argues that fear "preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails." In Lord of the Flies, the boys all answer fairly well to Ralph except for Jack and some of his hunters, because they do not fear Ralph and therefore do not fear the consequences of being punished by him.

Drew wrote:Leaders do not necessarily need to have their people fear them to be successful. Many leaders stay in power and take charge through methods of peace. Most leaders of present-day democracies are very peaceful. A leader is a leader by their ability to lead and take charge of people. Leading does not require the element of fear. In the Lord of The Flies, Ralph is elected out of his resourcefulness and he does not instill fear in the other kids on the island. However, he still leads them very well.

What makes you think that Ralph is a good leader?

Fear is played in The Lord of the Flies when, this young kid was complaining about the "beast" he heard at night. However, the night took the worst turn as we can infer he was burned in the forest fire caused by the other reckless boys who were trying to get a signal for any incoming boats or planes. This fears the other children, but it doesn't effect them because they're children, they soon make it seem like nothing happened.

I completely agree with you. The point you made about how leader's fear tactics have changed over time was very interesting, and has given me a new perspective on Machiavelli's work.

machiavelli implies without fear, a leader would not be as successful. it is safer to be feared than loved. he says with love as a subsitute, you could be overttaken easily because "love is presented by the link of obligation which...is broken at every opportunity for their advantage." I believe that a leader does not need fear to run a government/people because you could have a very successful leader if they are one to be good with peace-making. in Lord of the Flies, the smaller boys have an ongoing fear of something else being on the island with them; what the one kid called a "beastie".

Machiavelli does believe that you can be a successful leader without fear. I agree because although fear can give a leader the drive to be more aware, almost anyone can be a good leader. Fear plays a good role in "The Lord of The Flies" especially when showing the boys what could possible be on the island.

Although Machiavelli believes that leaders should use fear to their advantages, he does not state it to be impossible for a great leader to lead without fear. Machiavelli uses an example of Scipio, "the most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man..." (Machiavelli paragraph 4). Personally, I believe that the need for fear or love comes with the circumstances of the time period. For example, if it is a time of peace, there is no need for a fierce and unforgiving leader. On the other hand, if the leader lives during turbulent times, there may be a need for the leader to rule by fear and cruelty to ensure that there is no revolt and chaos will not reign. This principle is also prevalent in Lord of the Flies. Ralph is elected as a leader because of the conch; however, no one really seems to fear him as none seem to listen, "When the meeting was over they'd work for five minutes, then wander off or go hunting." (Golding 51).

I agree with Machiavelli's statement in that it is possible for a leader to lead without being feared. For a leader to be successful, they simply need to be respected enough that they will be listened to. It is not entirely necessary for a leader to be loved, as a leader desperate for approval may lose the respect of his people and in turn no longer be able to carry out their responsibilities. In some cases, an essence of fear is needed to keep some order, as seen in Lord of the Flies. Fear is a driving force in the novel, as the boys are introduced to an entirely unfamiliar environment that they have seemingly no way out of. Piggy is an especially fearful character who is under the impression that himself and another boy, Ralph, will surely die on the island. Piggy says; "We may stay here till we die." When Piggy says this, he introduces fear to the island, which was not a feeling that would disappear soon.

I see your point, but there would have to be some fear that is needed to control a population. Machiavelli says that a prince, as long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty. In the long run, would a "nice" leader prosper the kingdom?

It is very much possible for a leader to lead without fear, as many of leaders today do so. Ralph is another prime example of this statement. The boys follow him not only because he was the one who blew on the conch, but because his presence, looks, age, and personality fit the parameters of a leader. He lead with will and reasoning, not through fear and intimidation.

True, true.

A leader is a leader because of their capability to lead and take charge. Both Ralph and Jack can take charge but they do it differently. Ralph is more on topic while Jack is more aggressive in the way that he wants to be in control constantly. Democratic leaders do not need to use fear as a way to be more powerful but, I feel like that is mainly because in a Democratic government we have a system and over time we have evolved and learned how to get on with our lives peacefully. Couldn't we consider that these boys on the island possess a Democratic "group" since they all try to hear one another's ideas and they all took votes for a leader?

jfithian wrote:Machiavelli does believe that you can be a successful leader without fear. I agree because although fear can give a leader the drive to be more aware, almost anyone can be a good leader. Fear plays a good role in "The Lord of The Flies" especially when showing the boys what could possible be on the island.

Does he? What does his Hannibal example show?

Yes, Ralph is elected by the group of boys that were stranded, but Jack also became like a vice president to their group. Ralph stands for morality and leadership, while Jack is amorality and selfishness. They both tried to work and find a problem because of the fear installed them after the young boy died in the fire.

I see what you mean that there would need to be some fear, but is there a difference between how much fear would be needed to control people and how much would be too much?