Introduction
In Hannah Arendt’s book On Violence, she investigates the nature, origins, and spread of violence from the 1950s to the present day. Arendt gives an in-depth exploration of the connection between war, politics, violence, and power. She argues that authorities have the power to stop violence and restore order if they utilize their authority correctly. Consequently, Arendt demonstrates the unreasonable nature of the New Left’s utilization of violence as an end in itself or to change the power structure through her analysis of the connections between war, politics, violence, and power. She strongly criticized the New Left’s misunderstanding of Marxism and their reliance on violence to achieve impractical goals. She deems their approach as incorrect as it ignores the underlying nature of power to regard violence as a tool of power. Arendt emphasizes the need for cooperation for the functionality of any government as the foundation of power in any setting. She argues that power attained through violence lacks a solid foundation as it is characterized by conformity through physical force. In other words, governance should instead be based on a society’s capacity for cooperation.
Does the work fail to follow the logical consequences of its argument?
Arendt is clear in her opinion that using violence to advance political objectives is ineffective. In her book, Arendt states that power and violence are opposites. In other words, where one is in absolute control, the other is absent, and more often than not, violence arises where power fails. In addition, Arendt claims that power relies on the human ability to act in concert. She further explains that power does not belong to any single individual. It belongs to a group, and that power is in governance for as long as the group stays united. In other words, violence will inevitably result in losing freedom and, eventually, a dictatorial regime. Arendt says that in extreme cases, a group’s actions may necessitate violence to safeguard liberty. According to her, such an activity is only legal if it is allowed by capable persons who have been granted the authority to represent them. She also contends that violence can be accepted as a means of defending freedom if it is done for the public benefit rather than one’s personal and when no other means of achieving this aim are available.
She also maintains that violence cannot be justified as a way of preserving freedom if used to further one’s goals. An activity is only acceptable if it is conducted to meet basic requirements and without the prospect of personal gain. Individuals must always exercise caution and respect individual liberty to retain freedom. To summarize, violence may only be justified as a way of defending human rights in extreme situations and should be performed by capable individuals. This scenario should only be limited to when no other means of achieving this goal are available.
Arendt’s critics argue that her views on violence fail to follow the logical consequences of her argument. They claim, for instance, that Arendt overlooks the fact that violence can occasionally be employed as a tool for imposing and maintaining favorable political change. They highlight the American Revolution as an example, in which an oppressive government was overthrown, and a new, more democratic one was installed by force. Some further contend that Arendt ignores the possibility that violence could be employed as a justifiable kind of self-defense, such as in self-defense against an oppressive government, for instance, the Civil War.
I believe Arendt’s opinions on violence are consistent despite these criticisms. First, it is essential to note that Arendt does not dismiss the possibility that violent means of revolution are occasionally required. Violence cannot create power but can destroy it. She stresses that violence should only be used as a final option and sparingly because doing so often results in losing one’s freedom. In addition, she argues that the frequent use of violence undermines the power and authority of those using it. Arendt also acknowledges the possibility of self-defense through violence. She argues that such use of force, however, justified, should be carefully weighed because it could result in further violence and a dictatorial regime. She also acknowledges violence’s psychological, emotional, and physical impacts on the victims. Arendt argues that violence undermines the societal input and unity needed for lasting change. Therefore, her consistent and rational opinions of power, violence, and its impact on people and societies provide a logical viewpoint on the problem of violence.
Does the work fail to evidence argumentative claims that it advances?
Arendt acknowledged the conflict that stating violence destroys power would bring. Therefore, she used the French and American Revolutions as evidence to support her claim. In both cases, violence was used to achieve the desired political changes. However, violence led to more violence and chaos, proving her claim that violence attracts more violence. She states that violence is only justified once the objective is reached in such situations. However, such violence can quickly escalate and worsen conditions for all parties involved. Therefore, using the two revolutionary wars as an example, Arendt successfully demonstrates that violent solutions are short-lived as they increase the possibility of undermining the power of those who use them.
Critics such as Kutay (2019) argue that Arendt’s views on violence are simplified and fail to account for the complex nature of modern society and its relationship with violence. While Arendt argues that violence is often a brutal and destructive force, critics argue that violence is sometimes used to achieve larger goals. Critics of Arendt’s argument point out several instances where nonviolent resistance failed to bring change. For instance, the South African fight against apartheid and the Indian fight against British rule was only successful after the use of violence following the failure of many peaceful approaches. In such instances, resistance to violence has proven effective since the oppressors are unwilling to compromise.
While such critics may have some valid points that dispute Arendt’s opinion on violence, I believe that Arendt’s views are consistent and supported by evidence. Arendt describes violence as being neither lawful nor law-enforcing. She continues to add that the effectiveness of law enforcement always depends on the readiness to use violence when other means fail. In other words, Arendt provides an exception for the use of violence. However, she cautions against overusing violence as it should only be used when all other means fail, which shows consistency in her opinion on violence. She argues that violence is a means of imposing one’s will upon others, and if that is not the will of the society, then it undermines the power and authority of those using it.
In other words, violence is an act of power and authority; hence it should only be used if society agrees. Arendt believes in “the power of speech.” Speech is the most potent instrument in the human arsenal since it can liberate or enslave. Many individuals agree with this viewpoint since language helps people communicate and express their thoughts and feelings with one another. Communication can break down barriers, bridge cultural gaps, understand a worldview, and even affect people’s conduct for the better or worse. Arendt regards language as the backbone of society and the world as we know it. Speech is the foundation of language that people use to communicate their thoughts and feelings, with or without power. Without it, cultures would not be able to share their ideas.
Nonetheless, speaking has also been used by communities to oppress another group or individual, a fundamental problem Arendt finds within society because speech can either liberate or enslave depending on how those who use it see their position as members of society. Speech has been used to communicate both with authority and without authority. From time immemorial, people have been able to transmit their thoughts and feelings through speech. This means that without it, there would be no way for societies to share their ideas or for people to know what others think about them. However, speaking has also been used by communities to oppress another group or individual, a fundamental problem Arendt finds within society because speech can either liberate or enslave depending on how those who use it see their position as members of society.
Does the work suffer from serious contradictions?
At first glance, Arendt’s work appears to suffer from serious contradiction. On the one hand, she claims violence does not create power but instead destroys and undermines it. On the other hand, she argues that violence is an inevitable part of the power and law enforcement. She states that the effectiveness of law enforcement is the readiness to apply violence when all other means fail. In addition, she argues that violence and power are opposites and that violence exists where power has failed. However, she describes violence as an extreme form of power which is an inappropriate means to achieve one’s goals. With that in mind, she states that power comes from a collective consensus but acknowledges that violence is sometimes used to achieve favorable political objectives. Furthermore, Arendt sees power concentration as an extreme form of violence. In some ways, she advocates for the legalization of violence to achieve political goals. However, this does not mean supporting violence against innocent civilians; unless used in self-defense or to prevent more serious harm. She insists that violence is only necessary for its limited use in achieving political objectives.
However, critics argue that Arendt’s work is not necessarily contradictory. Instead, her opinions on violence remain consistent in advocating for different types of power. She argues that peaceful methods of conflict resolution should be used instead of violence whenever possible, but also acknowledges that sometimes when they fail to meet the objectives, violence may be necessary but to a limited extent. For instance, she states that violence remains the only option when all other nonviolent means fail to keep the opposition in check. Critics also point out that Arendt never advocated for people to avoid using violence altogether. Instead, she acknowledged that there are instances where violent means are necessitated, as she suggests that organized resistance can be used to protect freedom and justice and stop an unjust authoritarian government.
I believe Arendt’s work On Violence does not suffer from profound contradictions. Instead, her views are consistent and advocate for the responsible use of violence. In addition, she supports that since power is consensually given by society, collective and organized resistance by the majority of society is justifiable as a means to achieving favorable political change (Fantauzzi, 2019). Therefore, her work consistently establishes that violence can be used to protect the freedom and justice of a society in relevant political climates. She, therefore, understood that violence is relevant in certain situations but ultimately advocated for the importance of consensual power as opposed to that attained through violent means.
Does the work conveniently mishandle its evidence?
While Arendt’s work is generally appreciated, some readers and researchers have contended that her conclusions are arguable and are guilty of mishandling evidence by wrongly summarizing other theorists’ work. The primary argument of Arendt is that using violence to impact political change is inefficient. She argues that violence is an inadequate strategy for the government because it does not provide the level of public support needed for its results to be sustainable. She states that violence does not encourage a united front in which people can come together to work toward a common objective but instead generates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, leading to increased civil unrest and conflict (Ashcroft, 2021). She asserts that contrary to popular belief, violence should only be used as a last resort. Arendt contends that only specific situations, such as self-defense, allow for the justification of violence. Although often misunderstood, Arendt stressed that violence should only be used as a last option rather than calling for its complete abolition (Walsh, 2021). She uses activities made by Martin Luther King Jr., who ultimately favored peaceful resistance and sought to rally others to his cause rather than violence, to illustrate how unruly it is to use violence to support her argument.
However, some of Arendt’s critics feel that she overlooks the diverse uses of violence, especially in political struggles, and that her analysis of violence is highly simplified. For instance, some scholars have argued that Arendt’s view that violence should only be used as a last resort overlooks that violence may often be a valuable instrument for attaining specific aims. For example, David C. Rapoport (2018) asserts that “violence is a necessary tool for achieving certain goals, and its use should not be dismissed out of hand.” Decety et al. (2018) also argue that violence can be a preventive measure against additional violence or conflict. Moreover, some academics disagree with Arendt’s argument that violence and power are opposite forces. According to Carl Schmitt (2021), power can be used to impose violence, and violence can be used to obtain power. Power can often be retained by the threat of violence, making the two ideas more connected than Arendt argues.
Ultimately, while I believe Arendt’s work to be very influential, it is also essential to consider her critics’ arguments. For instance, while Arendt characterizes power as something maintained through cooperation, she undermines the idea that power is also sometimes maintained through coercion and force. Her view on violence fails to account for the multiple instances where violence played a crucial role in political struggles. However, in my opinion, although Arendt’s arguments are subject to interpretation and debate, her argument is well-supported through her analysis of historical examples of violence and power.
Conclusion
Arendt identifies two types of violence: structural violence, primarily present in social systems, and instrumental or physical violence, used to achieve a goal. Structural violence is the product of social injustice and oppression, while instrumental violence is a technique of dominance and control (Fantauzzi, 2019). Arendt contends further that power and violence are not always the same thing. According to her, violence is a weapon of control and enslavement, while discussion and negotiation are the foundations of power. She also rejects using violence to advance political objectives, claiming that doing so will only result in more violence and destruction.
Arendt’s understanding of violence is consistent throughout the book. Arendt highlights the difference between physical and structural violence when she analyzes how violence can be interpreted and used in On Violence (Ashcroft, 2021). She also establishes a critical difference between violence and power, maintaining that violence is a tool of authority rather than an expression of power. This significant contrast implies that violence can be used for more than expressing power. It can also be used to manipulate and control. Nonetheless, it is crucial to consider the opinions of critics who disagree with Arendt’s understanding of violence since they offer a crucial viewpoint that should be considered. Arendt claims that violence exists on two levels, complicating her idea of violence. On the one hand, she contended, violence is an unavoidable part of human existence and is required to preserve and maintain the physical integrity of people and civilizations. On the other hand, Arendt argues that violence can also be employed as a means of oppression and dominance. She believes that violence is a strong force that can be utilized to control and oppress individuals and demolish social and political institutions.
References
Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Ashcroft, C. (2021). Violence and Power in the Thought of Hannah Arendt. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Decety, J., Pape, R., & Workman, C. I. (2018). A multilevel social neuroscience perspective on radicalization and terrorism. Social neuroscience, 13(5), 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2017.1400462
Fantauzzi, S. (2019). Taking Responsibility for the World: Politics, the Impolitical and Violence in Hannah Arendt. Arendt Studies. https://doi.org/10.5840/arendtstudies201982722
Kutay, A. (2019). From Weimar to Ankara: Carl Schmitt, sovereignty and democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 45(6), 728-752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719830150
Rapoport, D. C. (2018). Turning to Political Violence: The Emergence of Terrorism. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12855
Schmitt, C. (2021). 1. Definition of Sovereignty. In Political Theology (pp. 5-15). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226738901-004
Walsh, P. (2021). Power and violence in the political thought of Hannah Arendt. In Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory (pp. 208-218). Routledge.
write