I remember a few lectures by my political theory professor on something termed the economy of violence it sounded similar to what you're trying to say. As I recall he made some very interesting points, however, that class was over two years ago and I'm not a political science major so I won't try to recreate them. Maybe someone who knows more about it will chime in. I did manage to find this tidbit of info:
Quote:
I have suggested a number of places where Machiavelli is consciously or implicitly breaking from the ancient political tradition -- politics as a science, dual standard of morality, appearance vs. reality, focus on realism vs. idealism. Perhaps the most dramatic break with the past is in Machiavelli's discussion of violence and the political process.
There had been few political theorists prior to Machiavelli who regarded power and violence as dominant attributes of the state. With Machiavelli power has come to the front stage in the concerns of the theorist. Politics could be controlled or directed without the application of force.
What Machiavelli tries to do is create a science of the controlled application of Violence (See Sheldon Colin, Politics and Vision for an extended discussion of this thesis.). It would be a science able to administer violence in precise and measured dosages. In a corrupt society, for instance, violence represents the only means of correcting decadence, a brief but severs shock treatment is necessary to restore civic consciousness. In other situations, violence might be unnecessary, the prince might only threaten its use or play on the fears of his constituents. Machiavelli is not suggesting that violence should be used indiscriminately. Violence must be regulated and apportioned. It would be foolish to use it where it was not needed.
Machiavelli's writings on violence represent a profound shift in Western's societies acceptance of violence as a one amongst many of the tools of the politician. Classical Greek thought abhorred any action that exceeded standards of morality or the mean. An act of violence was a break in the natural limits that a good person was duly bound to preserve. Aristotle, the tutor of Alexander the Great, thought long and hard about these questions. Masters, he said, must never be confused with statesmanship. There is something deeply wrong when a profession is so practical as to justify deliberate killing. The success of a conqueror like Alexander does not place his acts outside the limits set by; nature and morality.
The conviction that natural limits to violence existed and that violence was inherently wrong persisted into the sixteenth century. To what degree Machiavelli is responsible for the changing views about violence in the sixteenth century is hard to say. For a whole series of reasons, and Machiavelli was just one part, violence ceased to be regarded as an act of passion. It was possible think of the use of violence in a cool and calculating manner. Machiavelli instructed people in what might be called an economy of violence. Violence as a tool in the hands of the statesman, was not to be misused or overused, but now violence was an accepted part of the politicians tool bag.
The break of modern political theory from the past was well under way. Machiavelli is a figure that seems much more comfortable in our world of the late twentieth century. Aristotle would have a much harder time dealing with this political theorist from Florence
|
from
http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfcjh/wiu/e...n/machpol2.htm.