ABSTRACT
Given his defence of free markets and free expression, his view of society as a juxtaposition of individuals, pursuing their self-interest, his avowed fear that social dynamism could be crushed by too much conformity,1 and his recognition that social systems are ‘constantly changing in form’,2 Pareto is perhaps best categorised as a classical liberal. Unlike many liberals, however, he sought to discredit the prevailing conviction that moral judgements could be given a rational basis. Being sceptical rather than deontological, his liberalism originated in doubt, not in the certainties of natural law and social contract – doctrines he despised. In this sense, Pareto was heir to the anti-metaphysical tradition whose modern progenitor was Machiavelli.3 Before the great Renaissance thinker put pen to paper, the idea of a cosmic purpose or order was an unchallenged axiom of Western culture. But he made no reference to any ideal order or structure of the universe, to man’s place in the ‘great chain of being’, or to any notion of human development in pursuit of ends ordained by God or by nature. To Machiavelli, such metaphysical speculation reflected the human hunger for constants, for an illusory world of gods and demons. In explaining political and historical events, he attributed success or failure to the personality traits of the participants, as if their role in the great cosmic story of good vs. evil was of no relevance. Because he was keen to separate factual from normative analysis, description from evaluation, Machiavelli is seen as a founder (possibly the founder) of modern social science. Emulating the natural sciences, he was convinced that the results of social and historical observation could be formulated as law-like generalisations. What his observations taught him was that society was not, as Aristotle would have it, a natural unity but a locus of conflicting social forces, in perpetual
danger of splitting apart. Yet Machiavelli thought that this struggle between competing interests, apart from being natural in a world devoid of inherent purpose, was (potentially) rather healthy, since it could – if tempered by patriotism – inspire creativity and undermine complacency. As he rejected the idea of a motionless polity, Machiavelli ignored questions of legitimate authority and confined his gaze to questions of power – the ability to control an unstable complex of shifting forces. It was pointless to judge rulers in terms of their adherence to imaginary truths when verifiable results were all that mattered in practice. Politics, on this model, could have no transformative character; it was simply a method of managing conflict.4
