Power and Violence. Hannah Arendt

One of the most interesting books by Hannah Arendt is her On Violence. It’s a little book but it gives you many insights that apply to the political developments in the world and especially now to the Russia-Ukraine War. Most important is part II, where Arendt analyses the concepts of power, strength, force, authority and violence. These concepts are often used as synonyms, so Arendt, but then one ignores their subtle distinctions in meaning, which can make you blind to the realities they correspond to. (p. 45) Once you have become aware of these distinctions, they are very helpful to understand complex political events, like the Russia-Ukraine War. Before I’ll give you Arendt’s interpretation of the concepts just mentioned, first a quote: “The extreme form of power is All against One, the extreme form of violence is One against All.” (p. 42) Keep this in mind, when you go on now.
“Power”, so Arendt, “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. The moment the group, from which the power originated to begin with … disappears, ‘his power’ also vanishes.” Power needs legitimacy in order to be accepted. This can be by legal institutions or, for example, because a majority silently stands behind the person in power.
While power refers to the many, strength is an individual capacity. “[I]t 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 always be overpowered by the many, who often will combine for no other purpose than to ruin strength precisely because of its peculiar independence.” So, a boxer is strong by his training, but he can be overpowered by ten persons who individually are less strong but together they are.
Force is often seen as a synonym for violence but Arendt reserves it for “the force of nature” or “the force of circumstances”, so “to indicate the energy released by physical or social movements.” I think that you can also say that force refers to the intensity of violence.
Authority can be invested in persons and in offices. “Its hallmark is unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to obey; neither coercion nor persuasion is needed.” Authority requires respect and “[t]he greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter.”
“Violence, finally,” so Arendt, “is distinguished by its instrumental character. … [I]t is close to strength, since the implements of violence, like all other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength.”
Arendt stresses, however, that in practice these distinctions are rarely sharp and that the borders between the concepts can be vague.
Although power and violence are different phenomena, they often go together, so Arendt. Power can be destroyed by violence (massive use of artefacts, like killing and mass murder) but violence can never turn into power. Also this remark by Arendt is interesting: “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.” For instance, too much violence can undermine its (alleged) justification and by this the power of the user of violence, because people turn against him. (see for the quotes, etc. pp. 43-54)
Arendt’s concepts and ideas, as just expounded, can be used to understand philosophically what is going in Ukraine, and why Putin’s invasion has failed to a large extent and why Ukraine has held out so far. Here are some hints for your analysis:
- Putin and his generals apparently thought that Zelensky and his government didn’t have power; i.e. that the Ukrainian people or too many of them didn’t stand behind them and that especially the Russian speaking population was on the side of the Russians. However, the Ukrainians just massively supported their government: Zelensky and his government had by far more power than Putin & co. expected.
- The Ukrainian army was stronger than its adversary expected. It had better weapons than expected and got even better weapons during the war; its unity and morality were better; its strategy and tactics were better than expected and also better than the Russian unity, morality, etc.
- The Russian army is prepared to use very forceful arms during this war, leading to the destruction of cities and villages and to many civilian victims.
- The authority of Zelensky and his government was not only recognized by the Ukrainians but also by almost all countries in the world and especially by the western democratic countries. This led to a massive international support for the Ukrainians, resulting in the massive sending of weapons and humanitarian aid.
- Although the Ukrainian government had power (and authority), Putin & co. expected to be able to destroy it by the use of violence, which didn’t come true by such factors as just mentioned and by other factors as well. Russia reacted by using more violence, but just this can undermine its “justification” of this war, and by this Putin’s power, if not the power of the whole regime.
This first tentative analysis alone shows how powerful Arendt’s concepts are. I leave it to you to use them for a thorough analysis of what’s going on, in the southeast of Europe and in politics in general.