Arendt, Hannah. “On Violence” (1970)

Violence is often seen as a form, or extension, of power (Arendt 29). Hannah Arendt disagrees, arguing that violence only occurs when power disappears (46-7). The technological development of weapons, e.g. the nuclear bomb, have instilled a strong fear in nations to avoid international warfare because of its unpredictable consequences of mass destruction (2). However, violence is still used within domestic affairs by non-state actors with ideological motivations, as examples Arendt names the student rebellions across the globe in the 1950’s and 60’s, and has also proven to be more successful than peaceful dialogue in realizing political changes (16).

According to Arendt, power is obtained via a bottom-up approach wherein the people choose a select few to govern over them; violence, on the other hand, is used in a top-down system wherein the select few force the people to obey (34; 41). They are opposites, unable to reign together in society. Power can only be granted with authority, a stamp of approval from the collective that recognizes those in power as such; this does not require any form of coercion (38). “Single men without others to support them never have enough power to use violence successfully” (43-4). Violence is useless if the collective does not give it the power to work effectively. Hence, Arendt writes that “Violence can always destroy power” but “What never can grow out of [violence] is power” because authority is not granted to those who have abused their position of power (46).

Power lies in the collective, not in individuals (37). States that have used violence to completely eliminate power have created a state of terror wherein fear trumps opposition against the new totalitarian regime (47-8). Any sign of conspiracy against the state is removed by means of violence by the state itself, destroying all power in order to remain fully in control of the people. Arendt references totalitarian regimes like Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany throughout the essay, but her ideas can also be applied to contemporary times. Iran attempts to justify, among others, the religious persecution and strict censorship laws through its Islamic ideology. The severe beating of Mahsa Amini in 2022 by Iran’s supposed morality police officers for violating the women’s dress code is a clear example of human right violations in the country. The waves of protests across the globe hardly changed matters in Iran and the uprisings in the country itself were suppressed with more violence.

As Arendt writes, “Power is indeed of the essence of all government, but violence is not … [violence] always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues. And what needs justification by something else cannot be the essence of anything” (44). Yet, when violence becomes the “means of destruction,” destroying power, it subsequently does become the essence of the state, creating the state of terror (47). While Arendt writes from a post-war perspective, her focus on the extremist regimes from the twentieth century, her findings are not exclusively applicable to that era. Iran is only one of today’s examples, but other states also qualify as totalitarian: North Korea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Afghanistan. Such examples prove that the ideas presented in On Violence have withstood the test of time. Its distinction between power and violence offers a framework for understanding how we view perpetrators and their actions.

Author of this entry: Helenie Demir

Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. Great Britain: Penguin, 2023.