|
June 28, 2006
A useful commentary on Hannah Arendt and the concept of power, and the importance of maintaining meaningful distinctions among the concepts of "power", "strength", "force", "violence" and "authority". It states that according to Arendt:
the term "force" should never be used interchangeably with "power" in the study of politics. "Force" refers, instead, to movements in nature, or to other humanly uncontrollable circumstances, whereas "power" is a function of human relations. She thought that confusing these -- as with the concept of "social forces" so popular in the social sciences -- implies the operation of organic laws somehow isolated from the effects of human decisions. She maintained that "power" in social relations results from the human ability to act in concert to persuade or coerce others, while "strength" is the individual capacity to do the same. One can say that certain individuals possess the "strength" of their convictions, or that their charismatic personalities make them effective members of committees, or strong leaders.
It's a nice distinction between force and power as force is a key category in Newtonian physics--it is what moves or acts on objects. Power, in contrast, refers to power relations in political and social life.
Neo-classical economics continues to make a lot of use of 'force'---as in market forces---another indication that it understands itself to be a natural science. This mechanistic economic tradition does not work with power relations in relation to the market place, nor does it have a conception of power.
The economy-as-machine idea is modeled as mechanical and deterministic machines working according to given laws similar to those of mechanical physics. The "forces" of profit maximization and competition, to use the neoclassical terms, are said to inexorably drive business leaders to maximize shareholder value, no matter what the cost to worker well-being or the environment. The course of economies this model implies is thus fundamentally out of the hands of people and the institutions we create. If a capitalist economy is an inexorable machine, then the only options are to submit to it or dismantle it.
Arendt then uses power to place limits around violence:
Arendt parted company with Max Weber on the issue of violence. She was appalled by his premise that all governments -- whether democratic or not -- rest ultimately on the threat of violence against the people. Rightly, I think, she recognized this as an all-too-ready rationalization for totalitarian methods of governing. She pointed out that it is not violence but power that is the essence of government. Arendt concluded that neither Marx nor Weber really understood the difference between power and violence. Violence can destroy the old power, she said, but it can never create the authority that legitimizes the new. Violence is therefore the poorest possible basis on which to build a government. "To substitute violence for power can bring victory, but the price is very high; for it is not only paid by the vanquished but it is also paid by the victor."... She considered this particularly dangerous because "The means ... of destruction now determine the end -- with the consequence that the end will be the destruction of all [legitimate] power." Only terror is left!
|
Violence is therefore the poorest possible basis on which to build a government.
Violence exists alongside erupting mountains, but violence is not in the valcano itself. Human beings explain forces of nature as being violent and are aghast with the fear of physical damage. From an earlier age young people should be taught not to fear nature, but to love it, and be taught the proper methods by which to obtain happiness. In this way they will stop calling eruptions violent and look inwardly to that human principle from which violence springs. Taking progressive and intentional steps forward into evolution which does not fear violence is condusive to the development of the one.
I would say that perhaps outright malicious, nature destroying violence may be the poorest possible basis on which to build a government. I cannot even dream of an ideal society without boxing and fighting though. Boxing and fighting are good practice for the body, good satisfaction of the desire for competition.
The worst possible basis for society is too begin by contradicting nature.