What do you think?
Rate this book
On Violence
An analysis of the nature, causes, and significance of violence in the second half of the twentieth century. Arendt also reexamines the relationship between war, politics, violence, and power.
“Incisive, deeply probing, written with clarity and grace, it provides an ideal framework for understanding the turbulence of our times.”
The Nation
“Incisive, deeply probing, written with clarity and grace, it provides an ideal framework for understanding the turbulence of our times.”
The Nation
106 pages, Paperback
First published March 11, 1970
About the author
Hannah Arendt
377 books3,922 followersHannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 410 reviews
May 31, 2024
Hannah Arendt does an excellent job of tracing the thread of violence through the quilt of violent acts. The problem with violence is that it is no a problem until it effects 'us' directly: but by that time any cohesive solution to violence is no longer attainable. The longer violent acts are not addressed the less likely society will come together to find a mediated solution.
February 8, 2017
This book makes clear that Arendt is amazingly well read... Though, given 50 years, I am always amazed at how much more we are supposed to read (and often how much less we do) as modern academics and students rather than academics in the 1950s and 60s.
While I can see the relevance of Arendt's writing on this subject in reference to the time the book was published and in response to authors like Sorel and Fannon, unlike many of the other reviewers I am not a fan of this book. Her, at times polemical, arguments do not clarify anything for me and don't promote learning through questioning, they replace erroneous concepts with more erroneous concepts. Her book, rather than clarifying the way terms and concepts could be used or leading us to interesting ideas, is full of frustratingly confounded and under-developed concepts.
The basic premise of the book is that a "lack of power begets violence." While this is an interesting beginning, it relies on mistaken understandings of power and violence and simply reveals how writers like Lukes and Foucault were sorely needed to revolutionize the concept of Power; how thoughts of resistance had yet to filter through from Brechtian theater to James Scott's peasants and academic debate; and how writers like Kalyvas and Galtung are crucial for the current clarification and study of violence.
Power is lamely described as the “human ability not just to act [individually:] but to act in concert with.” (44) This is what Lukes would call a one dimensional power concept. It does not confront how power reflects who wins the game, who makes the rules of the game, and how the rules are internalized. Indeed, it barely hints at the coming understanding of power as entitlements (the power to the good life, Sen). She boils this further down through confused definitions of strength, force, and authority until she reaches the conclusion that Power is fundamentally 'political consensus and legitimacy.' Violence is never clearly defined. Though, it becomes obvious that she is referring to corporeal violence, with broad application of violence within other modes of political action. With these concepts she cannot confront structural or cultural violence, or even oppression and resistance.
Working off the premise that power is control (guaranteed through political consensus) she points to physical violence as a symptom of lost power or changes in power (that is lost consensus or changes in consensus). Because Power is conceptualized only as 'civitas' and consensus (really she fails to clearly present this argument), she misses the role of physical violence as a way to ENFORCE power, the strategic application of violence to maintain or gain power (Kalyvas, see Eastern Congo), and falls back on a sort of Hobbesian view of the world... without order there is chaos and violence. Rather than see violence as a lack of power, we should see the role of violence as a strategy to maintain and gain power, as fundamental to power, as common in transitions between power, and in the loss of consensus. Then we can find ways to minimize physical violence by doings such things as promoting social justice in the face of institutional violence and prejudices, facilitating peaceful political and economic changes, and engendering consensus.
Where there is a lack of incentives to use physical violence and a capacity to reach real social and political consensus through nonviolent means, I would imagine that direct physical violence would be less prevalent. I imagine this is what Arendt wants to say, but she ultimately misdefines "power" and under theorizes "violence".
While I can see the relevance of Arendt's writing on this subject in reference to the time the book was published and in response to authors like Sorel and Fannon, unlike many of the other reviewers I am not a fan of this book. Her, at times polemical, arguments do not clarify anything for me and don't promote learning through questioning, they replace erroneous concepts with more erroneous concepts. Her book, rather than clarifying the way terms and concepts could be used or leading us to interesting ideas, is full of frustratingly confounded and under-developed concepts.
The basic premise of the book is that a "lack of power begets violence." While this is an interesting beginning, it relies on mistaken understandings of power and violence and simply reveals how writers like Lukes and Foucault were sorely needed to revolutionize the concept of Power; how thoughts of resistance had yet to filter through from Brechtian theater to James Scott's peasants and academic debate; and how writers like Kalyvas and Galtung are crucial for the current clarification and study of violence.
Power is lamely described as the “human ability not just to act [individually:] but to act in concert with.” (44) This is what Lukes would call a one dimensional power concept. It does not confront how power reflects who wins the game, who makes the rules of the game, and how the rules are internalized. Indeed, it barely hints at the coming understanding of power as entitlements (the power to the good life, Sen). She boils this further down through confused definitions of strength, force, and authority until she reaches the conclusion that Power is fundamentally 'political consensus and legitimacy.' Violence is never clearly defined. Though, it becomes obvious that she is referring to corporeal violence, with broad application of violence within other modes of political action. With these concepts she cannot confront structural or cultural violence, or even oppression and resistance.
Working off the premise that power is control (guaranteed through political consensus) she points to physical violence as a symptom of lost power or changes in power (that is lost consensus or changes in consensus). Because Power is conceptualized only as 'civitas' and consensus (really she fails to clearly present this argument), she misses the role of physical violence as a way to ENFORCE power, the strategic application of violence to maintain or gain power (Kalyvas, see Eastern Congo), and falls back on a sort of Hobbesian view of the world... without order there is chaos and violence. Rather than see violence as a lack of power, we should see the role of violence as a strategy to maintain and gain power, as fundamental to power, as common in transitions between power, and in the loss of consensus. Then we can find ways to minimize physical violence by doings such things as promoting social justice in the face of institutional violence and prejudices, facilitating peaceful political and economic changes, and engendering consensus.
Where there is a lack of incentives to use physical violence and a capacity to reach real social and political consensus through nonviolent means, I would imagine that direct physical violence would be less prevalent. I imagine this is what Arendt wants to say, but she ultimately misdefines "power" and under theorizes "violence".
February 18, 2019
"Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power."
Arendt refuses to define power as mere ability to do violence as some of the old authors she quotes has defined it to be. The book is written in times of cold war and during fears of mutually assured destruction. Arendt refuses to see violence as something that goes along with political power. She seems to think that the very fact of the presence of nuclear weapons makes the world a more violent place. There is no weapon humanity ever created that it didn't use and all that. The best part is where she tries to define like sounding words - power, strength, authority etc.
Naturally, words themselves are mere symbols and you can use them to mean whatever you like but it enhances the ability to communicate better if each word described a unique abstract concept and every abstract concept has an exclusive word to signify it.
In the words of d'Entreves, "might, power, authority: these are all words to whose exact implications no great weight is attached in current speech; even the greatest thinkers sometimes use them at random. Yet it is fair to presume that they refer to different properties, and their meaning should, therefore, be carefully assessed and examined . . . . The correct use of these words is a question not only of logical grammar but of historical perspective. "
Power
"Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he is "in power" we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name."
Of course, power and violent means can be held by opposite parties:
"The extreme form of power is All against One, the extreme form of violence is One against All. And this latter is never possible without instruments. To claim, as is often done, that a tiny unarmed minority has successfully, by means of violence-shouting, kicking up a row, et cetera-disrupted large lecture classes whose overwhelming majority had voted for normal instruction procedures is therefore very misleading. (In a recent case at some German university there was even one lonely "dissenter" among several hundred students who could claim such a strange victory.) What actually happens in such cases is something much more serious: the majority clearly refuses to use its power and overpower the disrupters; the academic processes break down because no one is willing to raise more than a voting finger for the status quo. What the universities are up against is the "immense negative unity."
Strength
"Strength unequivocally designates something in the singular, an individual entity; it is the property inherent in an object or person and belongs to its character, which may prove itself in relation to other things or persons, but is essentially independent of them. The strength of even the strongest individual can al ways be overpowered by the
many, who often will combine for no other purpose than to ruin strength precisely because of its peculiar independence. The almost instinctive hostility of the many toward the one has always, from Plato to Nietzsche, been ascribed to resentment, to the envy of t:1e weak for the strong, but this psychological interpretation misses the
point. It is in the nature of a group and its power to turn against independence, the property of individual strength."
Authority
One of the best quotes from the book:
"Authority, relating to the most elusive of these phenomena and therefore, as a term, most frequently abused, can be vested in persons-there is such a thing as personal
authority, as, for instance, in the relation between parent and child, between teacher and pupil-or it can be vested in offices, as, for instance, in the Roman senate (auctoritas in Senate) or in the hierarchical offices of the Church (a priest can grant valid absolution even though he is drunk). I ts hallmark is unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to obey; neither coercion nor persuasion is needed. (A father can lose his authority either by beating his child or by starting to argue with him, that is, either by behaving to him like a tyrant or by treating him as an equal.) To remain in authority requires respect for the person or the office. The greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is Contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter."
You could see why those who claim to speak in name of crown or God are so easily enraged by cartoonists of satirists. All those institutions work on grounds of authority. Kundera's novel 'Joke' is based on fear the authority has of being laughed at.
Violence
"Violence, finally, as I have said, is distinguished by its instrumental character. Phenomenologically, it is close to strength, since the implements of violence, like all other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength until, in the last stage of their development, they can substitute for it."
Legitimacy
This is one of the best distinctions between violence and power.
"Power needs no justification, being inherent in the very existence of political communities; what it does need is legitimacy. The common treatment of these two words as synonyms is no less misleading and confusing than the current equation of obedience and support. Power springs up whenever people get together and act in concert, but it derives its legitimacy from the initial getting together rather than from any action that then may follow. Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on an appeal to the past, while justification relates to an end that lies in the future."
Governments of republic arise out of the constitution and so have a legitimate hold over power but the presence of constitution doesn't justify the actions of these powerholders. A prime minister or president cannot justify his action on grounds that he was elected to the post. Thus right way to question those in political power is not by asking "by what right they have done it?" but rather to ask "how they justify it?".
When someone vested with power abuses it to cause violence, he/she loses power by committing an illegitimate action.
"Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate."
And you will always find some kind of justification - right or wrong for even the worst of violence. Even genocides are being justified on the most screwed grounds. So the correct way to challenge violence is by questioning their legitimacy. Because victims, mostly minorities or underdogs, never agreed to accept the violence.
"Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future. No one questions the use of violence in self-defense, because the danger is not only clear but also present, and the end justifying the means is immediate."
Thus it is seen as justified if you murder someone in self-defense when other tries to rob you but it would be considered wrong if you kill someone just because he had started a factory that would destroy all life on Earth in 60 years.
*
Another good quote:
"in the words of Herzen, "Human development is a form of chronological unfairness since late-comers are able to profit by the labors of their predecessors without paying the same price," or, in the words of Kant, "It will always remain bewildering . . . that the earlier generations seem to carry on their burdensome business only for the sake of the later . . . and that only the last should have the good fortune to dwell in the [completed] building."
August 8, 2016
كتاب عظيم لأقصى حدّ بالنسبة لي.. والخمس نجمات هنّ لقيمته المعرفية بالنسبة لي وللمفاهيم التي اكتسبتها منه.. الريفيو قريباً إن شاء الله..
Read
December 17, 2014بداية توضح حنة وبشكل مبدئي بأن العنف بسبب عدم توفر البديل الحاسم في السياسة، وأن دعوات اللاعنف التي ظهرت في القرن العشرين كانت ردة فعل على الحروب والمجازر وتهديد الأسلحة الفتاكة.
الكتاب في جزء منه نقد لليساريين في بداية ومنتصف القرن العشرين، ونقد للماركسية وارتباطها بماركس ولينين.
في حديثها عن الحراك المدني للطلاب في الستينات وما بعدها ذكرت بأنها ظاهرة عالمية، وحللت أسبابها، فمنها وعيهم بالكوارث الكونية وتهديد العنف والتطور السريع للأسلحة، والشعور بتهديد التواجد الإنساني نتيجة هذا التطور.
قدمت نقد لليسار في وقتها (النصف الأول من القرن العشرين) بأنه يناقض فكرة ماركس حول الأحلام وأنها لا تصبح حقيقة وهذا فيما يختص شعاراتهم الحالمة التي رفعوها.
بالنسبة لماركس فهو يرفض الدوافع العاطفية لقيام الثورات، بينما تمسك اليساريون الجدد (بالنسبة لزمن الكتاب) بالدافع الأخلاقي العاطفي للدفاع عن مصالح مادية، وربطت بينها وبين مفهوم التقدم لدى اليسار.
التقدم بالنسبة لليبرالية واليسار كذلك حتمي وأن التاريخ يسير تجاه الأفضل، الفارق أن الليبرالية تؤمن بالتقدم الحتمي إيمان لا عقلاني غيبي، مقابل إيمان اليسار بالتقدم المرتبط بالصراع الطبقي الذي يؤدي للثورة في نهاية المطاف ومن ثم التغيير للأفضل وتحقيق نبوءة ماركس بقيام المجتمع اللاطبقي.
بينما حنة تنتقد مفهوم التقدم لدى الفريقين وتخص اليسار بالنقد وترى أن التقدم غير متوقع، وليس مشروطاً بأن يكون للأفضل خصوصا مع الحروب العالمية والأحداث الرهيبة التي شهدها القرن العشرين، والتي تقف أمامها مفاهيم اليسار والليبرالية عاجزة عن التفسير حيناً و متناقضة حينا آخر، وأن هذه الأحداث قد تشهد وبشكل متوقع نهاية الجنس البشري.
ولذا ارتبط فكر اليسار بالثورات وربما العنف بمفهوم التقدم، فالإيمان الغيبي بحتمية التقدم لدى اليسار جعلهم يناقضون ماركس ويشجعون قيام ثورات لدوافع عاطفية!
الفكرة الرئيسية في الكتاب، هي توضيح الفرق بين العنف والسلطة، و العلاقات بينهم كذلك، وأوضح الفروق بينهما هو حاجة السلطة للعدد، بينما العنف لا يحتاج للعدد إنما الأدوات (أدوات القمع).
يحتاج العنف للتبرير باستمرار، بينما السلطة لا تحتاج للتبرير إنما تحتاج للمشروعية المستندة على ماضي السلطة، بينما العنف يرتبط بالتبرير المرتبط بغاية مستقبلية
قد يدمر العنف السلطة، لكن العنف لا يشترط أن ينتج عنه سلطة، أي أن العنف قد ينتج من السلطة لكنه قد يتسبب في إنهائها.
نتيجة لذلك فحنة ترى أن السلطة والعنف ليسا مفهومين مختلفين وحسب، إنما متضادان، وهي بذلك تعارض قدرة النقض الجدلية عند ماركس و هيغل، فصراع السلطة والعنف لا ينتج عنه التطور إنما التدمير والفناء. وذلك بسبب جذور وطبيعة العنف.
ترفض أرندت تفسيرات علمي الاجتماع والطبيعة للعنف، فهي ترفض تفسير العنف كغريزة بشرية وردة فعل لا عقلانية على الاستثارة، وترى ارتباط الغضب والعنف بالعواطف الإنسانية الطبيعية، وغيابهما يعني غياب للإنسانية.
يظهر الغضب عندما يكون هناك احتمال لحدوث تغيير وتبدل في الأوضاع، لكنه لا يخدم سوى أهداف قصيرة المدى، للإصلاحات وليس التغيير الجذري.
بداية القرن العشرين ظهرت فكرة تروّج لفشل الثورات كنتيجة لتطور الأسلحة القاتلة، لكن الواقع أثبت فشل هذا الافتراض، وذلك عندما تسقط شرعية السلطة المقاتلة مهما بلغ تطور أسلحتها فهي لا تجدي نفعاً مقابل الثورة.
http://youtu.be/6UP3RLGmciM
رابط وثائقي للثورة الطلابية الفرنسية
http://youtu.be/AE1BnNJa0_g
رابط لوثائقي قصير عن ثورات الطلاب حول العالم في الستينات
حسب ما فهمت فحنة لا ترى الخلفيات الثقافية والدينية مؤثرة في تحليل العنف السياسي! وهذا غريب بالنسبة لي، تحليلها للعنف السياسي لا يمكنه تفسير التفاوت في العنف من ثورة لأخرى ومن مجتمع لآخر يقعون تحت نفس الظروف ولكن يختلف لجوئهم للعنف وشدة العنف كذلك.
عنف حركات المقاومة عندما ينجح ويؤدي للتحرر من المحتل، ألا يُعتبر هذا تغيير جذري؟ لا يمكن اعتبار التحرير هدف قصير المدى.
في الغلاف الخلفي مكتوب إن "الكتاب يتناول العنف في الكائن الإنساني وفي المجتمع" بينما حسب الكتاب فهو يتناول العنف السياسي، لكن العنف الاجتماعي والاقتصادي وغيره لا أظن أنه يخضع لهذا التحليل.
تحديث ١٨ ديسمبر ٢٠١٤
إبراهيم العريس تابعت مقالاته في زمن الطفولة/المراهقة في صحيفة الحياة في التسعينات، وأعرف لغته جيداً، لكن في الكتاب تبدو لغة الترجمة بعيدة عن العريس إضافة لركاكة بعض المقاطع
الكتاب في جزء منه نقد لليساريين في بداية ومنتصف القرن العشرين، ونقد للماركسية وارتباطها بماركس ولينين.
في حديثها عن الحراك المدني للطلاب في الستينات وما بعدها ذكرت بأنها ظاهرة عالمية، وحللت أسبابها، فمنها وعيهم بالكوارث الكونية وتهديد العنف والتطور السريع للأسلحة، والشعور بتهديد التواجد الإنساني نتيجة هذا التطور.
قدمت نقد لليسار في وقتها (النصف الأول من القرن العشرين) بأنه يناقض فكرة ماركس حول الأحلام وأنها لا تصبح حقيقة وهذا فيما يختص شعاراتهم الحالمة التي رفعوها.
بالنسبة لماركس فهو يرفض الدوافع العاطفية لقيام الثورات، بينما تمسك اليساريون الجدد (بالنسبة لزمن الكتاب) بالدافع الأخلاقي العاطفي للدفاع عن مصالح مادية، وربطت بينها وبين مفهوم التقدم لدى اليسار.
التقدم بالنسبة لليبرالية واليسار كذلك حتمي وأن التاريخ يسير تجاه الأفضل، الفارق أن الليبرالية تؤمن بالتقدم الحتمي إيمان لا عقلاني غيبي، مقابل إيمان اليسار بالتقدم المرتبط بالصراع الطبقي الذي يؤدي للثورة في نهاية المطاف ومن ثم التغيير للأفضل وتحقيق نبوءة ماركس بقيام المجتمع اللاطبقي.
بينما حنة تنتقد مفهوم التقدم لدى الفريقين وتخص اليسار بالنقد وترى أن التقدم غير متوقع، وليس مشروطاً بأن يكون للأفضل خصوصا مع الحروب العالمية والأحداث الرهيبة التي شهدها القرن العشرين، والتي تقف أمامها مفاهيم اليسار والليبرالية عاجزة عن التفسير حيناً و متناقضة حينا آخر، وأن هذه الأحداث قد تشهد وبشكل متوقع نهاية الجنس البشري.
ولذا ارتبط فكر اليسار بالثورات وربما العنف بمفهوم التقدم، فالإيمان الغيبي بحتمية التقدم لدى اليسار جعلهم يناقضون ماركس ويشجعون قيام ثورات لدوافع عاطفية!
الفكرة الرئيسية في الكتاب، هي توضيح الفرق بين العنف والسلطة، و العلاقات بينهم كذلك، وأوضح الفروق بينهما هو حاجة السلطة للعدد، بينما العنف لا يحتاج للعدد إنما الأدوات (أدوات القمع).
يحتاج العنف للتبرير باستمرار، بينما السلطة لا تحتاج للتبرير إنما تحتاج للمشروعية المستندة على ماضي السلطة، بينما العنف يرتبط بالتبرير المرتبط بغاية مستقبلية
قد يدمر العنف السلطة، لكن العنف لا يشترط أن ينتج عنه سلطة، أي أن العنف قد ينتج من السلطة لكنه قد يتسبب في إنهائها.
نتيجة لذلك فحنة ترى أن السلطة والعنف ليسا مفهومين مختلفين وحسب، إنما متضادان، وهي بذلك تعارض قدرة النقض الجدلية عند ماركس و هيغل، فصراع السلطة والعنف لا ينتج عنه التطور إنما التدمير والفناء. وذلك بسبب جذور وطبيعة العنف.
ترفض أرندت تفسيرات علمي الاجتماع والطبيعة للعنف، فهي ترفض تفسير العنف كغريزة بشرية وردة فعل لا عقلانية على الاستثارة، وترى ارتباط الغضب والعنف بالعواطف الإنسانية الطبيعية، وغيابهما يعني غياب للإنسانية.
يظهر الغضب عندما يكون هناك احتمال لحدوث تغيير وتبدل في الأوضاع، لكنه لا يخدم سوى أهداف قصيرة المدى، للإصلاحات وليس التغيير الجذري.
بداية القرن العشرين ظهرت فكرة تروّج لفشل الثورات كنتيجة لتطور الأسلحة القاتلة، لكن الواقع أثبت فشل هذا الافتراض، وذلك عندما تسقط شرعية السلطة المقاتلة مهما بلغ تطور أسلحتها فهي لا تجدي نفعاً مقابل الثورة.
http://youtu.be/6UP3RLGmciM
رابط وثائقي للثورة الطلابية الفرنسية
http://youtu.be/AE1BnNJa0_g
رابط لوثائقي قصير عن ثورات الطلاب حول العالم في الستينات
حسب ما فهمت فحنة لا ترى الخلفيات الثقافية والدينية مؤثرة في تحليل العنف السياسي! وهذا غريب بالنسبة لي، تحليلها للعنف السياسي لا يمكنه تفسير التفاوت في العنف من ثورة لأخرى ومن مجتمع لآخر يقعون تحت نفس الظروف ولكن يختلف لجوئهم للعنف وشدة العنف كذلك.
عنف حركات المقاومة عندما ينجح ويؤدي للتحرر من المحتل، ألا يُعتبر هذا تغيير جذري؟ لا يمكن اعتبار التحرير هدف قصير المدى.
في الغلاف الخلفي مكتوب إن "الكتاب يتناول العنف في الكائن الإنساني وفي المجتمع" بينما حسب الكتاب فهو يتناول العنف السياسي، لكن العنف الاجتماعي والاقتصادي وغيره لا أظن أنه يخضع لهذا التحليل.
تحديث ١٨ ديسمبر ٢٠١٤
إبراهيم العريس تابعت مقالاته في زمن الطفولة/المراهقة في صحيفة الحياة في التسعينات، وأعرف لغته جيداً، لكن في الكتاب تبدو لغة الترجمة بعيدة عن العريس إضافة لركاكة بعض المقاطع
November 25, 2013
Had this been written by Joan Bloggs, it would be out of print and almost certainly ignored. But it was written by Hannah Arendt, so it's in print. And given the lack of books on violence, that's probably a good thing. Unfortunately I suspect that it can easily be misread. The historical context here is everything: Arendt isn't writing about violence, she's writing about violence at the end of the 'sixties and start of the 'seventies, when for a brief moment fairly large numbers of people thought it was okay to blow up unjust things. Arendt makes her standard republican (not the party, which is increasingly less, you know, republican) argument that communal action can interrupt unjust structures, whereas violence can do so only very rarely, and for very short periods of time.
And she's also arguing against sociobiology's first golden age (if that's really the right term for it); people like Lorenz tried to find biological or psychological grounds for aggression, which has the obvious effect of naturalizing it and making it impossible to argue against. Not to mention being extremely silly, but that doesn't stop anyone in today's golden (again, wrong term) age of evo-psycho-sociobiology.
She argues by distinguishing between 'power,' which is what we have when we act communally; 'strength,' which is what an individual can do on her own; 'force,' which "should be reserved" for natural or structural force rather than intentional force; 'authority,' which is the possession of unquestioned leaders; and finally 'violence,' which is only ever an instrument to the ends of power or authority. This is all tendentious, but she puts it to good use.
Arendt argues on the basis of these definitions that revolution begins with a loss of authority, not with violent deeds; and that violence is not necessarily irrational. Fair enough.
But that seventies moment is far in the past. There aren't many people left who favor revolutionary violence (for better and worse); evo-psycho-sociobiologists spend their time naturalizing addictions rather than aggression; and making republican (not the party) arguments in public is met everywhere with scorn (on the right because you don't want the government's hand in your wallet; on the left because you don't want the government's hand on your privates).
What's left are a couple of interesting obiter dicta:
i) That the U.S.A. started out as an anti-sovereigntist entity, but then took over the idea of sovereignty from Old Europe.
ii) More bureaucracy will lead to more violence, because when there's nobody to blame with words, people lash out with limbs and weapons.
And she's also arguing against sociobiology's first golden age (if that's really the right term for it); people like Lorenz tried to find biological or psychological grounds for aggression, which has the obvious effect of naturalizing it and making it impossible to argue against. Not to mention being extremely silly, but that doesn't stop anyone in today's golden (again, wrong term) age of evo-psycho-sociobiology.
She argues by distinguishing between 'power,' which is what we have when we act communally; 'strength,' which is what an individual can do on her own; 'force,' which "should be reserved" for natural or structural force rather than intentional force; 'authority,' which is the possession of unquestioned leaders; and finally 'violence,' which is only ever an instrument to the ends of power or authority. This is all tendentious, but she puts it to good use.
Arendt argues on the basis of these definitions that revolution begins with a loss of authority, not with violent deeds; and that violence is not necessarily irrational. Fair enough.
But that seventies moment is far in the past. There aren't many people left who favor revolutionary violence (for better and worse); evo-psycho-sociobiologists spend their time naturalizing addictions rather than aggression; and making republican (not the party) arguments in public is met everywhere with scorn (on the right because you don't want the government's hand in your wallet; on the left because you don't want the government's hand on your privates).
What's left are a couple of interesting obiter dicta:
i) That the U.S.A. started out as an anti-sovereigntist entity, but then took over the idea of sovereignty from Old Europe.
ii) More bureaucracy will lead to more violence, because when there's nobody to blame with words, people lash out with limbs and weapons.
October 14, 2022
به نام او
🔹️«خشونت» عنوان رسالهای از هانا آرنت، فیلسوف یهودی آلمانیتبار است که عزتالله فولادوند آن را بههمراه مصاحبهای طولانی با عنوان «اندیشههایی درباره سیاست و انقلاب» در قالب یک کتاب ترجمه کرده است، کتابی که در سال پنجاه و نه اولبار توسط نشر خوارزمی منتشر شد.
🔸️آرنت در رسالهای درباره خشونت در سه فصل به این مفهوم و نسبت دولت و مخالفان میپردازد او در بخشی از رساله خود تعریفِ روشنی از چند مفهوم که در اغلب اوقات در گفتمانهای سیاسی با یکدیگر خَلط میشوند، ارائه میدهد: قدرت، نیرو، زور، اقتدار یا مرجعیت و خشونت*
او قدرت را مفهومی جمعی میداند که از طرف جامعه به فرد و یا دولت تفویض میشود و از طرفی خشونت را آخرین وسیله حفظ ساختار قدرت در مقابل دشمن بیگانه و بزهکاران داخلی برمی شمرد.
آرنت در این رساله بیشتر به تقابل قدرت (حد اعلای توانِ دولت) و خشونت (آخرین راهکار حفظ قدرت) میپردازد.
🔸️جالب آنکه آرنت این مسئله را به عنوان یک مولفه علمی بهدور از هر پیشداوریی بررسی میکند، به نظر او خشونت امری بدیهی برای دولتها در مقابل مخالفان است و دیگر اینکه خشونت تنها از طرف آنها اعمال نمیشود بلکه ممکن است از طرف مخالفان شرو�� شده و یا یه آن دامن زده شود. بخش زیادی از این رساله نقد آرای فرانتس فانون و برتراند راسل نظریهپردازان خشونت انقلابی است.
آرنت حتی دید مثبتی نسبت به جنبشهای دانشجویی ندارد و آنها را اغلب خام و از سرناآگاهی میداند البته نفس این جنبشها را مفید میداند ولی با ذکر نمونههایی بیشتر آنها را سیاستزده و مخرب برمیشمرد.
🔸️آرنت نویسنده سختنویسی نیست بهراحتی مینویسد و با ذکر مصداقها ابهامزدایی میکند، بخش اول این کتاب شاید در بعضی مواقع برای خواننده ناآشنا نامفهوم باشد ولی در بخش دوم که مصاحبه اوست بسیاری از این ابهامها رفع میشود.
🔸️و اما قسمتهایی از کتاب را در آخر این یادداشت میآورم ولی پیش از آن بگویم که کل این کتاب در کتاب ترجمهشده دیگری از آرنت با عنوان «بحرانهای جمهوری» آمده است، ولی ترجمه فولادوند چیز دیگری است.
🔹️«دستورهای کتابی دایر بر اینکه چگونه باید از مرحله مخالفت تا توطئه و از مقاومت تا قیام مسلحانه گام به گام پیش رفت و انقلاب کرد همه مبتنی بر این تصور خطاست که انقلاب را میتوان به وجود آورد. در مصافی که خشونت در برابر خشونت قرار میگیرد، حکومت همیشه دارای برتری مطق است
قدرت و خشونت ضد یکدیگرند، و آنجا که یکی سلطه پیدا کند، دیگری وجود نخواهد داشت. خشونت جایی پدید میآید که قدرت در مخاطره قرار بگیرد، ولی اگر در مسیر خود رها شود به نابودی قدرت منتهی میشود
خشونت بهکلی از ایجاد قدرت عاجز است و میتواند آن را نابود کند.
نکته این است که در بعضی شرایط، خشونت، یعنی مبادرت به عملی بدون بحث و گفتار و بدون اندیشیدن به نتایج، تنها راهی است که بتوان ترازوی عدالت را دوباره به حال ترازمندی درآورد.
دانشجویان چپ بالاترین آرزویشان این است که گروهی انقلابی باشند، و این درست همانچیزی است که نیستند. بهعنوان گروهی انقلابی متشکل نیستند، کوچکترین تصوری ندارند که قدرت به چه معناست، و حتی اگر قدرت بیصاحب در خیابان افتاده بود و میدانستند که آنجا افتاده، یقیناً از همهکس کمتر آمادگی داشتند که خم شوند و آن را بردارند، در حالی که این دقیقاً کاری است که انقلابیون واقعی میکنند. انقلابیون انقلاب نمیکنند! انقلابیون کسانی هستند که میدانند قدرت در چه زمانی در خیابان افتاده است و کی میتوانند آن را از زمین بردارند. تا امروز هنوز قیام مسلحانه به انقلاب نینجامیده است.»
*عباراتی که در زبان اصلی این نوشتار چنیناند:
1.Power
2.Strength
3.Force
4.Authority
5.Violence
🔹️«خشونت» عنوان رسالهای از هانا آرنت، فیلسوف یهودی آلمانیتبار است که عزتالله فولادوند آن را بههمراه مصاحبهای طولانی با عنوان «اندیشههایی درباره سیاست و انقلاب» در قالب یک کتاب ترجمه کرده است، کتابی که در سال پنجاه و نه اولبار توسط نشر خوارزمی منتشر شد.
🔸️آرنت در رسالهای درباره خشونت در سه فصل به این مفهوم و نسبت دولت و مخالفان میپردازد او در بخشی از رساله خود تعریفِ روشنی از چند مفهوم که در اغلب اوقات در گفتمانهای سیاسی با یکدیگر خَلط میشوند، ارائه میدهد: قدرت، نیرو، زور، اقتدار یا مرجعیت و خشونت*
او قدرت را مفهومی جمعی میداند که از طرف جامعه به فرد و یا دولت تفویض میشود و از طرفی خشونت را آخرین وسیله حفظ ساختار قدرت در مقابل دشمن بیگانه و بزهکاران داخلی برمی شمرد.
آرنت در این رساله بیشتر به تقابل قدرت (حد اعلای توانِ دولت) و خشونت (آخرین راهکار حفظ قدرت) میپردازد.
🔸️جالب آنکه آرنت این مسئله را به عنوان یک مولفه علمی بهدور از هر پیشداوریی بررسی میکند، به نظر او خشونت امری بدیهی برای دولتها در مقابل مخالفان است و دیگر اینکه خشونت تنها از طرف آنها اعمال نمیشود بلکه ممکن است از طرف مخالفان شرو�� شده و یا یه آن دامن زده شود. بخش زیادی از این رساله نقد آرای فرانتس فانون و برتراند راسل نظریهپردازان خشونت انقلابی است.
آرنت حتی دید مثبتی نسبت به جنبشهای دانشجویی ندارد و آنها را اغلب خام و از سرناآگاهی میداند البته نفس این جنبشها را مفید میداند ولی با ذکر نمونههایی بیشتر آنها را سیاستزده و مخرب برمیشمرد.
🔸️آرنت نویسنده سختنویسی نیست بهراحتی مینویسد و با ذکر مصداقها ابهامزدایی میکند، بخش اول این کتاب شاید در بعضی مواقع برای خواننده ناآشنا نامفهوم باشد ولی در بخش دوم که مصاحبه اوست بسیاری از این ابهامها رفع میشود.
🔸️و اما قسمتهایی از کتاب را در آخر این یادداشت میآورم ولی پیش از آن بگویم که کل این کتاب در کتاب ترجمهشده دیگری از آرنت با عنوان «بحرانهای جمهوری» آمده است، ولی ترجمه فولادوند چیز دیگری است.
🔹️«دستورهای کتابی دایر بر اینکه چگونه باید از مرحله مخالفت تا توطئه و از مقاومت تا قیام مسلحانه گام به گام پیش رفت و انقلاب کرد همه مبتنی بر این تصور خطاست که انقلاب را میتوان به وجود آورد. در مصافی که خشونت در برابر خشونت قرار میگیرد، حکومت همیشه دارای برتری مطق است
قدرت و خشونت ضد یکدیگرند، و آنجا که یکی سلطه پیدا کند، دیگری وجود نخواهد داشت. خشونت جایی پدید میآید که قدرت در مخاطره قرار بگیرد، ولی اگر در مسیر خود رها شود به نابودی قدرت منتهی میشود
خشونت بهکلی از ایجاد قدرت عاجز است و میتواند آن را نابود کند.
نکته این است که در بعضی شرایط، خشونت، یعنی مبادرت به عملی بدون بحث و گفتار و بدون اندیشیدن به نتایج، تنها راهی است که بتوان ترازوی عدالت را دوباره به حال ترازمندی درآورد.
دانشجویان چپ بالاترین آرزویشان این است که گروهی انقلابی باشند، و این درست همانچیزی است که نیستند. بهعنوان گروهی انقلابی متشکل نیستند، کوچکترین تصوری ندارند که قدرت به چه معناست، و حتی اگر قدرت بیصاحب در خیابان افتاده بود و میدانستند که آنجا افتاده، یقیناً از همهکس کمتر آمادگی داشتند که خم شوند و آن را بردارند، در حالی که این دقیقاً کاری است که انقلابیون واقعی میکنند. انقلابیون انقلاب نمیکنند! انقلابیون کسانی هستند که میدانند قدرت در چه زمانی در خیابان افتاده است و کی میتوانند آن را از زمین بردارند. تا امروز هنوز قیام مسلحانه به انقلاب نینجامیده است.»
*عباراتی که در زبان اصلی این نوشتار چنیناند:
1.Power
2.Strength
3.Force
4.Authority
5.Violence
January 6, 2015
While there are a number of key insights to be had in this slim, late work and her formulation of the inverse relationship between power and violence is fascinating, it's all bogged down in cringe-inducing racism -- for instance, her assertion that black student activists who were unqualified to attend university supposedly misused their power to demand courses in "nonexistent subjects" such as African literature, or her assertion that yes, of course reverse racism is a real thing and that black anger against racism is interchangeable with racism itself. The utterly gratuitous anti-black racism in the book taints not only the book itself, but casts her better work in a unflattering light and serves as an unpleasant reminder that even one of the great minds of the 20th Century can turn to pudding when under the sway of casual white supremacy.
April 27, 2020
I wanted to read something for Holocaust Memorial Day and well, Hannah Arendt is pretty much the first philosopher that crosses my mind when I think about the Holocaust, even if this book isn't about the Holocaust so really, I have no idea what I'm doing with my life.
On Violence is a short book (or more like essay) about, you guessed it, violence. My biggest conclusion is that Hannah Arendt is incredibly well read and that I am not. She bases herself on so many writers and I found it a little hard to follow. There's this assumption that you vaguely know what Sarte said about violence or what exactly Fanon thought.
Arendt does bring a lot of quotes but it felt like there was a little bit of name-dropping that made it hard, for me at least, to follow exactly what she had intended to say.
A lot of this book seems to hinge on the specific years it was written and I'm not sure how well it holds up in 2020. Arendt talks a bit about reverse racism and well, I have to say, she did not manage to convince me of it. I realize that this might be a different time but there's definitely something irksome about ignoring the power structures within the USA.
However, some parts were very interesting. This idea that power and violence contradict each other is fascinating. For such a short book, it definitely packs a punch. Some of the ideas here might stay with me and I can see myself rereading this in a few years after my degree.
I'm not sure if I'd wholeheartedly recommend this as I feel Arendt's longer works might be better since they are probably more developed. If you want something short yet challenging to read, this might be a good idea.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I also watched a documentary about humor in the Holocaust and I have to admit that it made more of an impact.
- I bet Hannah Arendt had a fantastic library.
-I don't quite understand why I didn't connect with this book as much as I feel like I should have.
On Violence is a short book (or more like essay) about, you guessed it, violence. My biggest conclusion is that Hannah Arendt is incredibly well read and that I am not. She bases herself on so many writers and I found it a little hard to follow. There's this assumption that you vaguely know what Sarte said about violence or what exactly Fanon thought.
Arendt does bring a lot of quotes but it felt like there was a little bit of name-dropping that made it hard, for me at least, to follow exactly what she had intended to say.
A lot of this book seems to hinge on the specific years it was written and I'm not sure how well it holds up in 2020. Arendt talks a bit about reverse racism and well, I have to say, she did not manage to convince me of it. I realize that this might be a different time but there's definitely something irksome about ignoring the power structures within the USA.
However, some parts were very interesting. This idea that power and violence contradict each other is fascinating. For such a short book, it definitely packs a punch. Some of the ideas here might stay with me and I can see myself rereading this in a few years after my degree.
I'm not sure if I'd wholeheartedly recommend this as I feel Arendt's longer works might be better since they are probably more developed. If you want something short yet challenging to read, this might be a good idea.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I also watched a documentary about humor in the Holocaust and I have to admit that it made more of an impact.
- I bet Hannah Arendt had a fantastic library.
-I don't quite understand why I didn't connect with this book as much as I feel like I should have.
February 9, 2017
I can feel myself slowly falling in love with Arendt. I already respected her, having been in the process of reading her "Origins" book for some time now. But in these shorter works of hers, you can really see her reasoning power and witness how perfectly balanced her turns of phrase are. What I most like about "On Violence" is that I can detect the research that has gone into writing this small essay. Her sentences are very compact, so in the end even a few of them can relay a lot of information. I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in the distinction between violence and power and how the two act if used in any political discourse.
Read
September 21, 2022
"Tek sorun şuydu ki, işçiler, tatmin edici çalışma ve yaşam koşullarına kavuştukları andan itibaren proleterya olarak kalmayı ve devrimci rollerini oynamayı inatla reddediyorlardı."
(s.85)
Yukarıdaki vurucu alıntının da yer aldığı bu ince kitap; esasında Şiddet üzerine odaklanmışsa da iktidarın, gücün, kuvvetin, yönetmenin her türlü felsefi temellendirmelerini anlama çabasıyla kaleme alınmış. Üçüncü bölümü ise özellikle şiddetin biyografik açıklamasını yapmaya çalışanlara karşı bir cevap niteliğinde. Şiddetin "araçsallığı"na odaklanan Arendt onun siyaset ile ve özelde iktidarla ilişkilerini detaylı şekilde analiz ederken pek çok örnekten, çalışmadan yararlanmış. Fikrinin temel özü şiddetin insandan ve iktidardan ayırt edilemeyecek denli karmaşık bir kavram olmasıyla beraber özünde aslında insanlığın tarihiyle yaşıt doğal bir insan duygusu olup daima haklılaştırmaya muhtaç bir araç olduğu üzerinedir. İktidar ve şiddet ise Arendt'te birbirinin karşıtında konumlandırılır. "Şiddet, iktidarın tehlikeye düştüğü anda ortaya çıkar" (s.67).
Yukarıdaki vurucu alıntının da yer aldığı bu ince kitap; esasında Şiddet üzerine odaklanmışsa da iktidarın, gücün, kuvvetin, yönetmenin her türlü felsefi temellendirmelerini anlama çabasıyla kaleme alınmış. Üçüncü bölümü ise özellikle şiddetin biyografik açıklamasını yapmaya çalışanlara karşı bir cevap niteliğinde. Şiddetin "araçsallığı"na odaklanan Arendt onun siyaset ile ve özelde iktidarla ilişkilerini detaylı şekilde analiz ederken pek çok örnekten, çalışmadan yararlanmış. Fikrinin temel özü şiddetin insandan ve iktidardan ayırt edilemeyecek denli karmaşık bir kavram olmasıyla beraber özünde aslında insanlığın tarihiyle yaşıt doğal bir insan duygusu olup daima haklılaştırmaya muhtaç bir araç olduğu üzerinedir. İktidar ve şiddet ise Arendt'te birbirinin karşıtında konumlandırılır. "Şiddet, iktidarın tehlikeye düştüğü anda ortaya çıkar" (s.67).
March 7, 2016
بیشتر به جزوه و رسالهای کوچک شبیه است تا یک نظریه و تحلیلِ صورت و پیکربندیشدهی مستوفی و منسجم. جستاری دربابِ مفهومِ خشونت نبود -لااقل از منظرِ تحلیلهای زبانی و فلسفهی تحلیلی-. بیشتر بررسیِ بخشی از تاریخِ سیاسیِ معاصر بود با لمحهای از رویکردِ خشونتشناختی. جستاری در بررسیِ علل و زمینهها و سرنوشتِ جنبشهای دانشجویی هم. در مجموع راضی نبودم و یک ستاره را هم با اکراه به آن دادم.
July 30, 2013
Now, this was disappointing!
Part I is clearly dated, I was ,nevertheless, surprised from Arendt's trivialization of black student movement, and generally from here "lumping" of the Neo-Leftists student movements across both sides of the Atlantic.
Part II, Arendt introduces here definition of Power, Strength, Force, Authority and Violence. Her definition of Power seemed simplistic to me (Where's Gramsci in all of this I kept asking). In this part she introduces the basic premise of the book and that is Power and Violence are opposites, Violence appears when Power is in jeopardy but left to its own course it will ultimately lead to Power's disappearance.
The notion of bureaucracy (the rule of an intricate system of bureaus: The rule of Nobody) is the most tyrannical form of rule, there is no one to ask, no one to address, there isn't a single enemy. It renders everyone powerless and with the loss of Power, Violence becomes inevitable. This is a good premises which she could have built on, but she doesn't develop it any further.
Foucault's ideas of Power and violence on the other hand are much more developed. In Foucault's earlier works (in Discipline and Punish for example) Power is inherent in such systems and perpetuates itself endlessly through the technologies of control and discipline. Which leaves us with the idea of powerless individuals, however what Foucault develops in his later works is the idea that Power is not a stand-alone essence that exists in individuals, its not an ability (Arendt) rather it is ACTION, it is not the opposite of violence, for the opposite of violence is passivity...anyway, this is not a discussion of Foucault.
I understand that Arendt's purpose was not tackle violence as an implement, but as a concept. But, I am still left with many questions.
Part I is clearly dated, I was ,nevertheless, surprised from Arendt's trivialization of black student movement, and generally from here "lumping" of the Neo-Leftists student movements across both sides of the Atlantic.
Part II, Arendt introduces here definition of Power, Strength, Force, Authority and Violence. Her definition of Power seemed simplistic to me (Where's Gramsci in all of this I kept asking). In this part she introduces the basic premise of the book and that is Power and Violence are opposites, Violence appears when Power is in jeopardy but left to its own course it will ultimately lead to Power's disappearance.
The notion of bureaucracy (the rule of an intricate system of bureaus: The rule of Nobody) is the most tyrannical form of rule, there is no one to ask, no one to address, there isn't a single enemy. It renders everyone powerless and with the loss of Power, Violence becomes inevitable. This is a good premises which she could have built on, but she doesn't develop it any further.
Foucault's ideas of Power and violence on the other hand are much more developed. In Foucault's earlier works (in Discipline and Punish for example) Power is inherent in such systems and perpetuates itself endlessly through the technologies of control and discipline. Which leaves us with the idea of powerless individuals, however what Foucault develops in his later works is the idea that Power is not a stand-alone essence that exists in individuals, its not an ability (Arendt) rather it is ACTION, it is not the opposite of violence, for the opposite of violence is passivity...anyway, this is not a discussion of Foucault.
I understand that Arendt's purpose was not tackle violence as an implement, but as a concept. But, I am still left with many questions.
February 14, 2014
Although structured as a three-part essay, this is essentially two intertwined essays in one. Each is interesting in a different way. The ideas of one, focused on the engagé moment, come out of the student revolutions in Europe and the U.S. (and, to a lesser extent, black power). This essay takes the reader back (if old enough) to an interesting moment that turned out not to have had a great effect, politically, on the future (its greatest effect, especially in the U.S., has been the reaction to it). Think student revolution now, and you think of Iran. It was also the time when nuclear deterrence put violence in a different light than today, when violence is thought of mainly in terms of terrorism, civil wars, and drones.
The other essay, more universal, is largely definitional. Arendt did a great job separating the concepts of power, authority, and violence.
“[T]he power structure itself precedes and outlasts all aims, so that power, far from being the means to an end, is actually the very condition enabling a group of people to think and act in terms of the means-end category.”
“Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on an appeal to the past, while justification relates to an end that lies in the future. Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate. Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future.”
Hence, “Violence can destroy power ... What never can grow out of it is power.”
“To remain in authority requires respect for the person or the office. The greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter.” Yes and, unfortunately, no.
The other essay, more universal, is largely definitional. Arendt did a great job separating the concepts of power, authority, and violence.
“[T]he power structure itself precedes and outlasts all aims, so that power, far from being the means to an end, is actually the very condition enabling a group of people to think and act in terms of the means-end category.”
“Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on an appeal to the past, while justification relates to an end that lies in the future. Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate. Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future.”
Hence, “Violence can destroy power ... What never can grow out of it is power.”
“To remain in authority requires respect for the person or the office. The greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter.” Yes and, unfortunately, no.
July 31, 2015
كتاب موجز، أشبه برسالة، في تحليل ظاهرة العنف، لا عنف الدولة بالذات، وإنما لماذا نستخدم العنف، كمجتمعات أو كدولة، فيه استكمال للنقاش حول العنف النقي والسيادة بين فالتر بنيامين وكارل شميت، والذي تفرّع كثيراً بعدهم، ولكنه منشغل أكثر بتحليل العنف مجتمعيّاً وعمليّاً كما ظهر في مظاهرات السود في أمريكا، أو مظاهرات الطلاب في فرنسا، وعنف الدولة في حين تتراجع سلطتها.
وهذه الأخيرة لعلها إحدى أهم أفكار الكتاب، حيث لا ترى حنه أن العنف دليل على السلطة، بل إن العنف يظهر كلما تراجعت السلطة.
وهذه الأخيرة لعلها إحدى أهم أفكار الكتاب، حيث لا ترى حنه أن العنف دليل على السلطة، بل إن العنف يظهر كلما تراجعت السلطة.
May 5, 2011
This was a really great work of political theory by Arendt. It explores violence, mostly through the lens of the 1960s when she was writing this book. It looks at the student rebellions across the world, in both democracies and communist countries. The coincidence of the uprisings is interesting, and she posits that they are both protesting for the same reason, albeit in different manifestations. Students around the world were looking for freedom. The students in communist countries were looking for freedom to express themselves through both speech and action and thereby have an effect on the processes and progress of their respective countries. The students in the Western democracies were protesting their lack of freedom in action. They protested the lack of agency they felt. Both sets of students felt impotent and unimportant, as if they entirely didn't count, and decided to protest against it.
Some of the most impacting quotes for me:
"Rage is by no means an automatic reaction to misery and suffering as such; no one reacts with rage to an incurable disease or to an earthquake or, for that matter, to social conditions that seem to be unchangeable. Only where there is reason to suspect that conditions could be changed and are not does rage arise. Only when our sense of justice is offended do we react with rage, and this reaction by no means necessarily reflects personal injury, as is demonstrated by the whole history of injury, as is demonstrated by the whole history of revolution, where invariably members of the upper classes touched off and then led the rebellions of the oppressed and downtrodden."
"Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance... Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it."
"Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime is the best excuse for doing nothing."
"Racism, white or black, is fraught with violence by definition because it objects to natural organic facts - a white or black skin - which no persuasion or power could change; all one can do, when the chips are down, is to exterminate their bearers. Racism, as distinguished from race, is not a fact of life, but an ideology, and the deeds it leads to are not reflex actions, but deliberate acts based on pseudo-scientific theories. Violence in interracial struggle is always murderous, but it is not "irrational"; it is the logical and rational consequence of racism, by which I do not mean some rather vague prejudices on either side, but an explicit ideological system."
"The technical development of the implements of violence has now reached the point where no political goal could conceivably correspond to their destructive potential or justify their actual use in armed conflict."
I'm thinking about more right now, but I haven't found the best way to express it yet. I want to write about the way the book made me think differently about how Americans were celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, and what this says about us and the war on terror. So I'll probably be editing this in the future to add some about this, using a few of the quotes above, and maybe some others.
Some of the most impacting quotes for me:
"Rage is by no means an automatic reaction to misery and suffering as such; no one reacts with rage to an incurable disease or to an earthquake or, for that matter, to social conditions that seem to be unchangeable. Only where there is reason to suspect that conditions could be changed and are not does rage arise. Only when our sense of justice is offended do we react with rage, and this reaction by no means necessarily reflects personal injury, as is demonstrated by the whole history of injury, as is demonstrated by the whole history of revolution, where invariably members of the upper classes touched off and then led the rebellions of the oppressed and downtrodden."
"Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance... Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it."
"Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime is the best excuse for doing nothing."
"Racism, white or black, is fraught with violence by definition because it objects to natural organic facts - a white or black skin - which no persuasion or power could change; all one can do, when the chips are down, is to exterminate their bearers. Racism, as distinguished from race, is not a fact of life, but an ideology, and the deeds it leads to are not reflex actions, but deliberate acts based on pseudo-scientific theories. Violence in interracial struggle is always murderous, but it is not "irrational"; it is the logical and rational consequence of racism, by which I do not mean some rather vague prejudices on either side, but an explicit ideological system."
"The technical development of the implements of violence has now reached the point where no political goal could conceivably correspond to their destructive potential or justify their actual use in armed conflict."
I'm thinking about more right now, but I haven't found the best way to express it yet. I want to write about the way the book made me think differently about how Americans were celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, and what this says about us and the war on terror. So I'll probably be editing this in the future to add some about this, using a few of the quotes above, and maybe some others.
November 5, 2018
هانا آرنت در «خشونت» از زمانهی طغیانگری جوانان میگوید و قدرت را (که آن را نه مترادف خشونت، که در مقابل آن تعریف میکند) تحلیل میکند. نویسنده ریشهها و آثار خشونت را بازبینی میکند و به تحلیل آرای تحسینکنندگان خشونت میپردازد
Read
April 16, 202443rd book of 2024.
So starts On Violence, which Arendt wrote between 1967-69. Though short, it is riddled with quotations and explorations from a number of other sources, such as Marx, Sartre, Fanon, and Chomsky. Her main line of thought seems to be in detangling the idea that power and violence are synonymous; Arendt believes, on the contrary, they are opposites. I found her idea interesting that violence is the result of failing power*. She does, state however, that violence can destroy power, whilst also being 'incapable of creating it'. In one brilliant portion of the essay, Arendt asks, 'Who are they, this new generation?' and answers her own question with, 'Those who hear ticking'. As Spender calls the future, 'a time-bomb buried'. This is very of its time, post-WW2, and in the middle of the Cold War, but it is true of today too. As she writes on the very first page (partially quoting, too, Harvey Wheeler),
An interesting read, though at times a little bogged down with the insistent quoting. The argument could have been tighter, but the last few pages where she begins to conclude some ideas, are worthwhile. Sadly, she also leaves lots unanswered and unexplored.
___________________
*
These reflections were provoked by the events and debates of the last few years as seen against the background of the twentieth century, which has become, indeed, as Lenin predicted, a century of wars and revolutions, hence a century of that violence which is currently believed to be their common denominator.
So starts On Violence, which Arendt wrote between 1967-69. Though short, it is riddled with quotations and explorations from a number of other sources, such as Marx, Sartre, Fanon, and Chomsky. Her main line of thought seems to be in detangling the idea that power and violence are synonymous; Arendt believes, on the contrary, they are opposites. I found her idea interesting that violence is the result of failing power*. She does, state however, that violence can destroy power, whilst also being 'incapable of creating it'. In one brilliant portion of the essay, Arendt asks, 'Who are they, this new generation?' and answers her own question with, 'Those who hear ticking'. As Spender calls the future, 'a time-bomb buried'. This is very of its time, post-WW2, and in the middle of the Cold War, but it is true of today too. As she writes on the very first page (partially quoting, too, Harvey Wheeler),
The 'apocalyptic' chess game between the superpowers, that is, between those that move on the highest plane of our civilisation, is being played according to the rule 'if either "wins" it is the end of both'; it is a game that bears no resemblance to whatever war games proceeded it.
An interesting read, though at times a little bogged down with the insistent quoting. The argument could have been tighter, but the last few pages where she begins to conclude some ideas, are worthwhile. Sadly, she also leaves lots unanswered and unexplored.
___________________
*
Rule by sheer violence comes into play where power is being lost; it is precisely the shrinking power of the Russian government, internally and externally, that became manifest in its 'solution' of the Czechoslovak problem - just as it was the shrinking power of European imperialism that became manifest in the alternative between decolonisation and massacre. To substitute violence for power can bring victory, but the price is very high; for it is not only paid by the vanquished, it is also paid by the victor in terms of his own power.
November 28, 2014
تضبط حنه دلالات كل من العنف والسلطة، وتحدد أوجه العنف المختلفة سواء في الأنظمة السياسية او الثورات، وتندد بدعوات العنف وترى ان فيها نوع من اعادة لتوكيد التمايز الطبقي.
وتنتقد الأحزاب اليسارية وترى انها ابتعدت عن فلسفة ماركس بتبنيها أسباب عاطفية كالاخلاق في ثوراتها وهو ماسعى ماركس لتحرير الثورات منها لأسباب مادية وترى ان التقدم والتطور في الماركسية نتاج حتمي لتطور التناقضات للوصول الى طبيعتها التركيبية ، وتأخذ على الماركسيه اهمالها للتأصيل النظري لمجالس الثورات مقابل حضورها العملي كأسلوب للمشاركة الشعبية (بغض النظر عن جدواها) دفع الى تكوين احزاب يسارية لمواجهة الديمقراطية او بيروقراطية الحزب الواحد فحسب.
وتأخذ حنه على الليبرالية عبثية التقدم فيها اذ تنطوي على إيمان مطلق لا عقلاني بالتقدم افرز حركات تقع تحت وطأة التلاعب ورفض النظريات استنادا للواقع (لا يحتاج لقناعة ولربما لمراجعات فكرية) رفضا هشا يحتاج لوقت طويل.
كما ترى ان البيروقراطية هي اهم أدوات العنف التي تساند الديكتاتوري بالإضافة الى ان العنف في الديمقراطية والثورات والديكتاتورية يشترك في وجود عنف من قبل الأكثرية تجاه الأقلية، او من فرد او أقلية تجاه الاكثرية او الجميع وهذا الأخير تفرزه الأكثرية الصامته ومن اشكاله الخضوع للمطالب غير الواقعية للأقلية.
كما ترى ان فرض القانون والنظام لربما ينطوي على تدهور الرأي العام ودفع الثمن على شكل تأييد قيام دولة بوليسية تستخدم الاٍرهاب لفرض النظام وفي المقابل فإن الاعتراف بالخطيئة الجماعية تجاه جماعة ما هو الا اسهل طريقة للحيلولة دون اكتشاف المذنبين الحقيقين .
ثم تنتقد نظريات السلوك والتي ترى ان العنف لايحتاج الى استثارة بل انه امر أساسي للحفاظ على الذات وبغيابه تبرز اللاعقلانية (اي ان العنف من طبيعة الانسان وهذا ما انتقدته حنه بعكس مايظن البعض) بل ترى ان غياب العنف في مواقف تتطلبه لا يعني بروز اللاعقلانية بل عجز المرء ان يستثار، وتنتقد العنصرية باعتبارها حقيقة بيولوجية وترى انها ليست اعمال حقيقة او فكرية قائمة عن أساس نظري علمية بل افعال قائمة على منطقية عنصرية.
كما ترفض إسقاط الحياة العضوية على الحياة السياسية باعتبار ان ذلك يبرر للعنف على خلفية الخلق نفسه ليصبح الدمار والعنف متلازمان لسيرورة الحياة.
ثم تناقش حنه الفرق بين مطالب الثوار في الشرق والغرب، ومدى فعالية العنف في تحقيق الأهداف قريبة و بعيدة المدى ( ترى ان العنف يعجز عن تحقيق الأهداف بعيدة المدى اي التغيرات البنيوية)
وتحاول حنه خلال الكتاب الى الربط بين حضور العنف وحكم الاٍرهاب وغياب السلطة والظروف المرافقة للعنف سواء اكانت على مستوى الأحزاب او الخدمات او الحقوق .
وتنتقد الأحزاب اليسارية وترى انها ابتعدت عن فلسفة ماركس بتبنيها أسباب عاطفية كالاخلاق في ثوراتها وهو ماسعى ماركس لتحرير الثورات منها لأسباب مادية وترى ان التقدم والتطور في الماركسية نتاج حتمي لتطور التناقضات للوصول الى طبيعتها التركيبية ، وتأخذ على الماركسيه اهمالها للتأصيل النظري لمجالس الثورات مقابل حضورها العملي كأسلوب للمشاركة الشعبية (بغض النظر عن جدواها) دفع الى تكوين احزاب يسارية لمواجهة الديمقراطية او بيروقراطية الحزب الواحد فحسب.
وتأخذ حنه على الليبرالية عبثية التقدم فيها اذ تنطوي على إيمان مطلق لا عقلاني بالتقدم افرز حركات تقع تحت وطأة التلاعب ورفض النظريات استنادا للواقع (لا يحتاج لقناعة ولربما لمراجعات فكرية) رفضا هشا يحتاج لوقت طويل.
كما ترى ان البيروقراطية هي اهم أدوات العنف التي تساند الديكتاتوري بالإضافة الى ان العنف في الديمقراطية والثورات والديكتاتورية يشترك في وجود عنف من قبل الأكثرية تجاه الأقلية، او من فرد او أقلية تجاه الاكثرية او الجميع وهذا الأخير تفرزه الأكثرية الصامته ومن اشكاله الخضوع للمطالب غير الواقعية للأقلية.
كما ترى ان فرض القانون والنظام لربما ينطوي على تدهور الرأي العام ودفع الثمن على شكل تأييد قيام دولة بوليسية تستخدم الاٍرهاب لفرض النظام وفي المقابل فإن الاعتراف بالخطيئة الجماعية تجاه جماعة ما هو الا اسهل طريقة للحيلولة دون اكتشاف المذنبين الحقيقين .
ثم تنتقد نظريات السلوك والتي ترى ان العنف لايحتاج الى استثارة بل انه امر أساسي للحفاظ على الذات وبغيابه تبرز اللاعقلانية (اي ان العنف من طبيعة الانسان وهذا ما انتقدته حنه بعكس مايظن البعض) بل ترى ان غياب العنف في مواقف تتطلبه لا يعني بروز اللاعقلانية بل عجز المرء ان يستثار، وتنتقد العنصرية باعتبارها حقيقة بيولوجية وترى انها ليست اعمال حقيقة او فكرية قائمة عن أساس نظري علمية بل افعال قائمة على منطقية عنصرية.
كما ترفض إسقاط الحياة العضوية على الحياة السياسية باعتبار ان ذلك يبرر للعنف على خلفية الخلق نفسه ليصبح الدمار والعنف متلازمان لسيرورة الحياة.
ثم تناقش حنه الفرق بين مطالب الثوار في الشرق والغرب، ومدى فعالية العنف في تحقيق الأهداف قريبة و بعيدة المدى ( ترى ان العنف يعجز عن تحقيق الأهداف بعيدة المدى اي التغيرات البنيوية)
وتحاول حنه خلال الكتاب الى الربط بين حضور العنف وحكم الاٍرهاب وغياب السلطة والظروف المرافقة للعنف سواء اكانت على مستوى الأحزاب او الخدمات او الحقوق .
August 8, 2016
اليست الدولة سلطة الناس على الناس هي شكل من اشكال العنف ما الفرق بين العنف و السلطة. تعتمد السلطة على راي الاغلبية في حين ان العنف لا يعتمد على راي الاغلبية او العدد بل بعتمد على ادوات القمع التي تزيد و تضاعف من القوة البشرية. لقد اثبت علم الاجتماع و الطبيعة ان الانسان يمتلك نزعات عدوانية حيوانية فالشخص الذي يتامل زمانه قد يعتبر الحرب مجرد امر عارض في حين ان من يقرا التاريخ يفهم ان الحرب نشاط اساسي تقوم عليه حياة الكائن البشري فالعنف اذن رد فعل طبيعي يشبه الغريزة الغذائية و الجنسية لكن الكاتبة ترفض تصنيف الانسان كحيوان عاقل اذا كان العدوان في عالم الحيوان كعامل اساسي للارتقاء في الحياة ففي عالم الانسان حيث يتم تنفيذ العنف على شكل جماعات تجد الانسان يضحي بنفسه في سبيل مصلحة جماعته كيف يمكن لانسان يخاف من الموت ان يفعل ذلك هنا تظهر فكرة التساوي امام الموت وكذا رغبة الخلود عن طريق الافعال. قد يحقق العنف اهدافا على المدى القصير مثلا قبول مطالب طلبة في جامعة لكنه دون جدوى على المدى الطويل وعندما تصبح السلطة مهددة يحل العنف قد يكون الانسان قد حقق تقدما في المجال العلمي واستطاع الصعود على سطح القمر لكن اكبر قوة موجودة على سطح الارض امريكا مازالت عاجزة عن ايقاف حرب او ايقاف العنف الذي ينتج عنه اضرار فادحة سواء للمنتصر او المهزوم
April 27, 2021
واقعا نوشتن از هانا ارنت سخته ، کسی که در یه همچین سطح بالایی نوشته هاش قرار داره شما چیز اضافه ای در وصفش نمیتونی بگی .
این روزا هم که کتاب (آیشمن در اورشلیم) آرنت ترند شده ولی واقعا نمیدونم چند نفر از مخاطب ها با اون دیدگاهی که آرنت مدنظرش بود اون کتاب رو خوندن؟ توی خوندن نوشته هاش شما حس میکنی مطالب خیلی روان و راحته اما باید بدونی پس همه این پاراگراف ها ، تئوری های روابط بین الملل خوابیده و باید دقت کنی .
کتاب خشونت ، محشر بود . من که واقعا لذت بردم ، آرنت میخواد دلیل خشونت ، تفاوت و شباهت قدرت و خشونت و علل و تصویری از شورش ها ،انقلابات و جنگ ها رو تشریح کنه .
.
مدام باید یه هایلایتر دستت باشه و هایلایت کنی بس که جملات ماندگاری داره ، شاید این کتاب زیاد مشهور نشده باشه اما به نظرم حداقل یکبار خوندنش برای نخبگان فکری جامعه ضروریه .
البته یادتون باشه آرنت پست مدرن نیست اصلا شاید دقیق نشه حدس زد چه اندیشه هایی داره چون در دسته بندی دانشمندانی با اراء مختلط قرار میگیره ، اما در نقدر مدرنیته و تاثیرات دانش اکادمیک امروزی هم قلم زده .
.
ترجمه عزت اله فولادوند رو واقعا دوست داشتم ،و پیشنهاد میکنم با این ترجمه بخونید
این روزا هم که کتاب (آیشمن در اورشلیم) آرنت ترند شده ولی واقعا نمیدونم چند نفر از مخاطب ها با اون دیدگاهی که آرنت مدنظرش بود اون کتاب رو خوندن؟ توی خوندن نوشته هاش شما حس میکنی مطالب خیلی روان و راحته اما باید بدونی پس همه این پاراگراف ها ، تئوری های روابط بین الملل خوابیده و باید دقت کنی .
کتاب خشونت ، محشر بود . من که واقعا لذت بردم ، آرنت میخواد دلیل خشونت ، تفاوت و شباهت قدرت و خشونت و علل و تصویری از شورش ها ،انقلابات و جنگ ها رو تشریح کنه .
.
مدام باید یه هایلایتر دستت باشه و هایلایت کنی بس که جملات ماندگاری داره ، شاید این کتاب زیاد مشهور نشده باشه اما به نظرم حداقل یکبار خوندنش برای نخبگان فکری جامعه ضروریه .
البته یادتون باشه آرنت پست مدرن نیست اصلا شاید دقیق نشه حدس زد چه اندیشه هایی داره چون در دسته بندی دانشمندانی با اراء مختلط قرار میگیره ، اما در نقدر مدرنیته و تاثیرات دانش اکادمیک امروزی هم قلم زده .
.
ترجمه عزت اله فولادوند رو واقعا دوست داشتم ،و پیشنهاد میکنم با این ترجمه بخونید
June 26, 2012
اقتباسات من الكتاب:
أرندت: كل انحطاط يصيب السلطة، إنما هو دعوة مفتوحة للعنف
أرندت: كلما كانت سيطرة النزعة البيروقراطية على الحياة العامة أكبر، كان إغراء ممارسة العنف أكبر
أرندت: التمرّد الطلابي ظاهرة كونية، لكن تجلياتها تختلف بالطبع اختلافا كبيرا بين بلد وآخر
أرندت: إن تنوّر المرء يقف على الدوام ضد طبيعته كصاحب مصلحة
فانون: الجوع مع الكرامة، أفضل من الخبز الذي يؤكل في العبودية
أرندت: العنف يظهر حين تكون السلطة مهددة، لكنه إن ترك على سجيته سينتهي الأمر باختفاء السلطة
أرندت: إن ذروة الإرهاب تكون حين تبدأ الدولة البوليسية بالتهام أبنائها
أرندت: تكتيكات العنف والشغب تكون ذات جدوى بالنسبة إلى أهداف المدى القصير فقط
ويليام أوبريان: أحيانا يكون العنف الطريقة الوحيدة التي تؤمّن سماع صوت الاعتدال
أرندت: من المفروض أن يكون الشعب هو الذي يحكم أولئك الذي يديرون شؤونه
بافيل كوهوت: المواطن الحر هو المواطن المشارك في الحكم
أرندت: كل انحطاط يصيب السلطة، إنما هو دعوة مفتوحة للعنف
أرندت: كلما كانت سيطرة النزعة البيروقراطية على الحياة العامة أكبر، كان إغراء ممارسة العنف أكبر
أرندت: التمرّد الطلابي ظاهرة كونية، لكن تجلياتها تختلف بالطبع اختلافا كبيرا بين بلد وآخر
أرندت: إن تنوّر المرء يقف على الدوام ضد طبيعته كصاحب مصلحة
فانون: الجوع مع الكرامة، أفضل من الخبز الذي يؤكل في العبودية
أرندت: العنف يظهر حين تكون السلطة مهددة، لكنه إن ترك على سجيته سينتهي الأمر باختفاء السلطة
أرندت: إن ذروة الإرهاب تكون حين تبدأ الدولة البوليسية بالتهام أبنائها
أرندت: تكتيكات العنف والشغب تكون ذات جدوى بالنسبة إلى أهداف المدى القصير فقط
ويليام أوبريان: أحيانا يكون العنف الطريقة الوحيدة التي تؤمّن سماع صوت الاعتدال
أرندت: من المفروض أن يكون الشعب هو الذي يحكم أولئك الذي يديرون شؤونه
بافيل كوهوت: المواطن الحر هو المواطن المشارك في الحكم
June 27, 2021
اگر ترجمه بهتری میداشت قطعا ازش بیشتر لذت میبردم
March 28, 2019
While Hannah Arnedt may indeed have some great analysis and theorising about the relationship of power and violence in this book (mostly in chapter 2), which is definitely worth reading, it is just a huge shame that the book is so deeply marred by her dismissive and tone-deaf treatment of race, specifically the issue of black americans, to the extent one wishes she hadn't mentioned it at all. It is best - or rather worst - exemplified in her astonishingly pedantic quibbling over Frantz Fanon's symbolic use of bread in his writing.
"It is on a par with Fanon’s worst rhetorical excesses, such as, “hunger with dignity is preferable to bread eaten in slavery.” No history and no theory is needed to refute this statement; the most superficial observer of the processes that go on in the human body knows its untruth."
Yes of course Fanon is using rhetoric here, but it is not rhetoric meant to be taken so literally. He is not in seriousness advising oppressed people to starve themselves to death, and one suspects she knows that full well.
Her writing is shot through with what, by the books's end, seems to be nothing short of resentment for black peoples' increased visibility and voice on the global stage, accusing civil rights movement leaders of racism against whites for merely pursuing the interests of their community. These comments are especially prevalent in the final chapter, yet she directs almost no such criticism towards white America, which survives the book comparatively unscathed. She frequently refers to black people as "silly and outrageous", dismisses their culture as "non-existent", and their languages (specifically Swahili) as a "no-language".
She seems at times to be under the impression that, now that the civil rights movement has happened (the book was written just after it), racism in America is over any further grievances to come from black people are simply reverse-racism. She completely fails to acknowledge any of the deeper socio-economic realities of race in America, and even seems genuinely irritated by the idea of Black students being allowed access to traditionally white educational institutions.
Certainly read it for her actual theorising on violence, power, governments, etc... - which is good when she sticks to the point - but make sure to take anything she says about identity with a very large pinch of salt.
Have I missed the point? Maybe, but so has she.
"It is on a par with Fanon’s worst rhetorical excesses, such as, “hunger with dignity is preferable to bread eaten in slavery.” No history and no theory is needed to refute this statement; the most superficial observer of the processes that go on in the human body knows its untruth."
Yes of course Fanon is using rhetoric here, but it is not rhetoric meant to be taken so literally. He is not in seriousness advising oppressed people to starve themselves to death, and one suspects she knows that full well.
Her writing is shot through with what, by the books's end, seems to be nothing short of resentment for black peoples' increased visibility and voice on the global stage, accusing civil rights movement leaders of racism against whites for merely pursuing the interests of their community. These comments are especially prevalent in the final chapter, yet she directs almost no such criticism towards white America, which survives the book comparatively unscathed. She frequently refers to black people as "silly and outrageous", dismisses their culture as "non-existent", and their languages (specifically Swahili) as a "no-language".
She seems at times to be under the impression that, now that the civil rights movement has happened (the book was written just after it), racism in America is over any further grievances to come from black people are simply reverse-racism. She completely fails to acknowledge any of the deeper socio-economic realities of race in America, and even seems genuinely irritated by the idea of Black students being allowed access to traditionally white educational institutions.
Certainly read it for her actual theorising on violence, power, governments, etc... - which is good when she sticks to the point - but make sure to take anything she says about identity with a very large pinch of salt.
Have I missed the point? Maybe, but so has she.
May 4, 2007
A fantastic treatise on the nature and function of violence, particularly in the modern period. However, the focus is overwhelmingly from the political dimension. Divided into three parts, parts 2 and 3 are essential reading. Part 1 oftentimes comes off as dated in its examples and outlook. But it is Part 2 that makes the entire book. In it, Arendt carefully delineates and differentiates definitions for "Power", "Strength", "Force", "Authority", and "Violence". All of which are useful if not necessary in thinking about the state of affairs today. I also found memorable her description of bureaucracy, that form of government based on intentional distance and anonymity. She labels it the "rule by Nobody", a succinct but capturing descriptor.
The book is highly recommended for the "concerned" and "active" out there as it pushes us to think more carefully about the various causes and systems we either stand behind or are caught in.
The book is highly recommended for the "concerned" and "active" out there as it pushes us to think more carefully about the various causes and systems we either stand behind or are caught in.
May 14, 2021
This book is 51 years old.
Nevertheless, it describes the nuances of violence and power with a sharpness and depth relatively unknown to modern scholars.
Clear, thought-provoking, brilliant as only Hannah Arendt managed to be in the most controversial century of the Human History. A must-read, even 51 years later.
Nevertheless, it describes the nuances of violence and power with a sharpness and depth relatively unknown to modern scholars.
Clear, thought-provoking, brilliant as only Hannah Arendt managed to be in the most controversial century of the Human History. A must-read, even 51 years later.
August 27, 2016
كتاب قيّم، ومع أنه كتب خلال النصف الثاني من القرن الماضي، فإنه يفسر سمات عديدة في عصرنا الحالي، بالإضافة إلى أن الكاتبة عملت في صفحات قليلة على عرض جوهر فكرتها، مع مقارنة ونقاش وافيين لعدة مفكرين اجتماعيين وفلاسفة وآرائهم.
Read
June 12, 2022rip hannah arendt you would have loved twitter
August 1, 2018
Arendt escribió este ensayo a finales de los sesenta, durante el auge del movimiento estudiantil, por lo que dedica la primera parte a analizar la coyuntura y a señalar ciertas contradicciones de la Nueva Izquierda (que, en mi opinión, fácilmente podrían ser trasladadas a ciertas agrupaciones políticas de la actualidad).
La tesis principal de su obra es que la violencia y el poder no solo son dos cosas distintas, sino que también son excluyentes casi sin excepción.
Para empezar, define al poder como la capacidad humana de actuar concertadamente, por lo que no pertenece a una sola persona sino a un grupo, y solo existe mientras este se mantenga unido. En cambio, sostiene que la violencia tiene un carácter instrumental, ya que «como todos los medios siempre precisa de una guía y una justificación hasta lograr el fin que persigue. Y lo que necesita justificación por algo no puede ser la esencia de nada». En contraposición, señala que el poder requiere legitimidad, ya que esta se basa en una apelación al pasado, mientras que la justificación «se refiere a un fin que se encuentra en un futuro» y «pierde plausibilidad mientras más se aleja en el futuro el fin propuesto». Esta distinción la lleva a sostener que «La violencia puede siempre destruir al poder; del cañón de un arma brotan las órdenes más eficaces que determinan la más instantánea y perfecta obediencia. Lo que nunca podrá brotar de ahí es el poder.»
Si bien es cierto que el poder puede valerse de la violencia en algunos casos, esta última solo es racional mientras resulte efectiva para alcanzar el fin que la justifique. En esta línea, advierte que «Donde la violencia ya no es apoyada y sujetada por el poder se verifica la bien conocida inversión en la estimación de medios y fines. Los medios, los medios de destrucción, ahora determinan el fin, con la consecuencia de que el fin será la destrucción de todo poder.»
Finalmente, concluye que «El poder y la violencia son opuestos; donde uno domina absolutamente falta el otro. La violencia aparece donde el poder está en peligro pero, confiada a su propio impulso, acaba por hacer desaparecer al poder. Esto implica que no es correcto pensar que lo opuesto de la violencia es la no violencia; hablar de un poder no violento constituye en realidad una redundancia. La violencia puede destruir al poder; es absolutamente incapaz de crearlo.»
Un tema que me gustaría destacar es la evidente desconfianza de la autora ante los aportes que las ciencias naturales podrían hacer al tema en el caso de probarse una tendencia biológica - natural hacia la violencia, al punto de ridiculizar de alguna manera las investigaciones que se estaban llevando a cabo en la época en que este libro fue escrito. Entiendo que desde la óptica de la ciencia política parezca a primera vista incompatible amalgamar dos cuestiones en apariencia tan distintas; sin embargo, me atrevería a decir -y esta es una conclusión reciente para mí- que muchos de los problemas y tensiones que en este momento atraviesan a las ciencias sociales son producto de esta negación categórica de la influencia de la biología en lo que hoy entendemos (y queremos entender) únicamente como construcciones racionales. Creo que estas últimas deberían perderle el miedo al conocimiento proveniente de las primeras (que, por otro lado, está justificado, considerando el uso que se ha hecho de él en el pasado), ya que sus teorías podrían ser de mucha utilidad para comprender al ser humano y sus circunstancias.
No tengo problema en reconocer que, a pesar de su breve extensión, esta no me resultó una lectura fácil. Arendt da mucho por sentado (no subestima en ningún momento al lector; antes bien, lo «apura» para que le siga el ritmo) y su estilo no es particularmente ameno, ya que encadena sus razonamientos de modo que cualquier distracción obliga a volver atrás para retomar la idea. Aun así, me encantó su tono asertivo (que no suelo encontrar en mujeres -solo me viene a la cabeza de Beauvoir-, aunque es cierto que no me dedico a leer académicas) y el desafío intelectual que constituyó para mí leer esta obra.
La tesis principal de su obra es que la violencia y el poder no solo son dos cosas distintas, sino que también son excluyentes casi sin excepción.
Para empezar, define al poder como la capacidad humana de actuar concertadamente, por lo que no pertenece a una sola persona sino a un grupo, y solo existe mientras este se mantenga unido. En cambio, sostiene que la violencia tiene un carácter instrumental, ya que «como todos los medios siempre precisa de una guía y una justificación hasta lograr el fin que persigue. Y lo que necesita justificación por algo no puede ser la esencia de nada». En contraposición, señala que el poder requiere legitimidad, ya que esta se basa en una apelación al pasado, mientras que la justificación «se refiere a un fin que se encuentra en un futuro» y «pierde plausibilidad mientras más se aleja en el futuro el fin propuesto». Esta distinción la lleva a sostener que «La violencia puede siempre destruir al poder; del cañón de un arma brotan las órdenes más eficaces que determinan la más instantánea y perfecta obediencia. Lo que nunca podrá brotar de ahí es el poder.»
Si bien es cierto que el poder puede valerse de la violencia en algunos casos, esta última solo es racional mientras resulte efectiva para alcanzar el fin que la justifique. En esta línea, advierte que «Donde la violencia ya no es apoyada y sujetada por el poder se verifica la bien conocida inversión en la estimación de medios y fines. Los medios, los medios de destrucción, ahora determinan el fin, con la consecuencia de que el fin será la destrucción de todo poder.»
Finalmente, concluye que «El poder y la violencia son opuestos; donde uno domina absolutamente falta el otro. La violencia aparece donde el poder está en peligro pero, confiada a su propio impulso, acaba por hacer desaparecer al poder. Esto implica que no es correcto pensar que lo opuesto de la violencia es la no violencia; hablar de un poder no violento constituye en realidad una redundancia. La violencia puede destruir al poder; es absolutamente incapaz de crearlo.»
Un tema que me gustaría destacar es la evidente desconfianza de la autora ante los aportes que las ciencias naturales podrían hacer al tema en el caso de probarse una tendencia biológica - natural hacia la violencia, al punto de ridiculizar de alguna manera las investigaciones que se estaban llevando a cabo en la época en que este libro fue escrito. Entiendo que desde la óptica de la ciencia política parezca a primera vista incompatible amalgamar dos cuestiones en apariencia tan distintas; sin embargo, me atrevería a decir -y esta es una conclusión reciente para mí- que muchos de los problemas y tensiones que en este momento atraviesan a las ciencias sociales son producto de esta negación categórica de la influencia de la biología en lo que hoy entendemos (y queremos entender) únicamente como construcciones racionales. Creo que estas últimas deberían perderle el miedo al conocimiento proveniente de las primeras (que, por otro lado, está justificado, considerando el uso que se ha hecho de él en el pasado), ya que sus teorías podrían ser de mucha utilidad para comprender al ser humano y sus circunstancias.
No tengo problema en reconocer que, a pesar de su breve extensión, esta no me resultó una lectura fácil. Arendt da mucho por sentado (no subestima en ningún momento al lector; antes bien, lo «apura» para que le siga el ritmo) y su estilo no es particularmente ameno, ya que encadena sus razonamientos de modo que cualquier distracción obliga a volver atrás para retomar la idea. Aun así, me encantó su tono asertivo (que no suelo encontrar en mujeres -solo me viene a la cabeza de Beauvoir-, aunque es cierto que no me dedico a leer académicas) y el desafío intelectual que constituyó para mí leer esta obra.
May 6, 2014
While examining why the student movements of the '60s reached a boiling point, something I didn't expect when I first opened the cover, Arendt disentangles Mao Zedong's axiom that power grows from the barrel of a gun. By clearly and concisely distinguishing terms like power, violence, and authority, words we tend to use synonymously in political discourse, the true source of power is revealed--political action conducted in concert with others--which she then extends to explain the collective feeling of powerlessness that continues to persist in modern democratic societies. Her theory in this piece raises important questions that are even more relevant today than they were in her time, questions that were never resolved by the protests of the '60s, leaving us with a haunting sense that the current trajectory of the modern State, absorbing more and more power into a faceless central bureaucracy that will never hear nor alleviate our grievances, is reaching another watershed moment, another crisis, that is bound to push the disempowered toward the last recourse of political action--violence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 410 reviews