Life a Machiavellian affair?

I am reading a book by Robert Greene titled the 33 strategies of war. From my reading so far, I am gripped by the portrayal of the nature human relationships that the book claims to be true. It seems to enunciate human relationship as a sort of cut-throat Machiavellain affair. I don’t really like to see life in such a manner. Nonetheless, the book does make an evincing description of how some people operate in the social world to get the advantage, and it advocates for one to understand these strategies and to protect oneself from the duplicitous aims that one’s opponents may harbor. I shall present some texts that I encountered in my reading.

From the preface section page xv – “We live in a culture that promotes democratic values of being fair to one and all, the importance of fitting into a group, and knowing how to cooperate with other people. We are taught early on in life that those who are outwardly combative and aggressive pay a social price : unpopularity and isolation. These values of harmony and cooperation are perpetuated in subtle and not-so-subtle ways – through notions of correctness that saturate the public space. The problem for us is that we are trained and prepared for peace, and we are not at all prepared for what confronts us in the real world- war….In politics, business, even the arts, we face opponents who will do almost anything to gain an edge. More troubling and complex, however, are the battles we face with those who are supposedly on our side. There are those who outwardly play the team game, who act very friendly and agreeable, but who sabotage us behind the scenes, use the group to promote their own agenda. Others, more difficult to spot, play subtle games of passive aggression, offering help that never comes, instilling guilt as a secret weapon. On the surface everything seems peaceful enough, but just below it, it is every man and woman for him or herself, this dynamic infecting even families and relationships. The culture may deny this reality and promote a gentler picture, but we know it and feel it, in our battle scars.”

From page xvi – “This ideal of fighting rationally comes to us from organized warfare, where the art of strategy was invented and refined. In the beginning, war was not at all strategic. Battles between tribes were fought in a brutal manner, a kind of ritual of violence in which individuals could display their heroism. But as tribes expanded and evolved into states, it became all too apparent that war had too many hidden costs, that waging it blindly often led to exhaustion and self-destruction, even for the victor. Somehow wars had to be fought more rationally.”

I thought it an interesting point by the author that the game of cunningness plays out even in context with a superficial pretense of apoliticism. I have heard from a Christian person I know about the political atmosphere of strife that he encounters as a Christian ministry leader at his church, about things such as leadership struggles, and how common Christian phrases can be turned into forces of rhetorics to advance one’s own agenda and political purposes within the church. I don’t participate much in the ministry affairs at my church, but I do acknowledge the possibility that some form of political strife might be present in all churches, going past the superficial images of general amicableness and conviviality that one usually gets the impression of as a casual member of a church community. I do think however that people in the church should maintain some perspective about the issues that they face and not let trivial matters become a source of division or animosity within the church body.

I suppose the political environment is much more intense in secular organizations. I am afraid that I might be politically quite naïve. In part, I don’t participate in the committee of secular organizations. There are probably the likes of those who live life with the credos of a Machievellian, who seek to convert every possible profit into a gain. I do try to analyze such characters from my reading of law school materials, and from my reading of books of people in the business world, and by watching movies featuring themes as such. And I do hear from the experience of people who deal with political aspects in their careers. I was listening to a relative commenting on politics. He made a description of how it works anywhere in the world – people form their alliances and help those within their alliances in order to advance their respective interests. I suppose it pays to be wise about how to go about the political aspects of things in life. But then, I don’t exactly subscribe to the notion that everything runs based on the politics of human relationships. Or at least, the ideal is that they should not be. For example, I believe that the judiciary should be rule-based, and should not be partial towards any individual. And there are certain aspects of business transaction that are handled by the government that should come under regulation in order to deter corruption or cronyism. For example, government businesses should be awarded on the basis of a fair tender and auction scheme. And it is necessary for those who are helming to positions of authority to stick to these ideals and enforce them for the good of society. I suppose what I am trying to say here is that there is a distinction between ideals and practice, and between the public sphere and the private sphere. There are ideals that humans should seek to live by, such as creating a more fair, just, and equitable society. And there are different rules that applies to different domains of society. For example, the concept of alliance formation and alliance-based relationship may be more relevant to the private sphere than to the public sphere which should be more rule-based.